# Scoring Assist Differential - Breaking Down The Kobe Laker Era



## Prolific Scorer

Got this from another site, pretty intresting and really puts things in some perspective..






> Scoring Assist Differential - Breaking Down The Kobe Laker Era
> 
> Accuracy Rating: 6
> 
> Check out this stat that analyzes assist production with respect to scoring, and then applies it to the post-Shaq Kobe era lakers. Scoring/assist differential. Its not loving on Kobe, but its quite fair. Definitely an original view of the stats.





http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2009/06/scoring-assist-diferential-breaking.html


----------



## kflo

terrible article.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

If you're going to bash the article, at least give some kind of logical arguement or reason.

Especially from a poster who goes by the numbers like yourself.


The numbers tell a whole lot more than your 2 word posts.


----------



## kflo

tell me what the numbers say to you.


----------



## Cap

That article doesn't even make sense, why would you arbitrarily equate assists-to-FGA that way? Reads like some guy straight out of high school algebra wrote it.


----------



## Tragedy

wow. Seriously? It's amazing the lengths people go to discredit Kobe Bryant. I guess because he won the title they have to create algorithms to reduce him and downplay what he's done. The fact is he played against very good teams to win the title. It wasn't a weak playoffs by any stretch of the imagination, unlike last season where they walked through the competition and sleep walked into Boston's fist. In the end he'll be measured by what he DID do, not what he didn't, or what could have been. Currently it's 4 titles, 1regular season MVP, 1 Finals MVP, a boatload of All star and All NBA Offense and Defense nods, scoring records and all.

And he's going to play at least 2 or 3 more seasons at his current pace, before he really adjusts his game.

People are going to be upset when he retires though. And lol @ the article for overrating Lakers role players. All of a sudden the 09 Lakers and his former teammates are the best team of all time. lol @ any article that says kwame brown and smush parker were any good.

Oh and, if Kobe couldn't make Smush parker a better player (which is untrue as he had the most amount of success with kobe) why couldn't the god Wade take him to the next level? I mean his Assist to 40 point games ratio is much much better than Kobe's, right?

Or what about kwame brown who came to LA a shattered player, at the hands of the player everyone gets so insecure about when it comes to Kobe - Michael Jordan?


----------



## kflo

Yet kobe's teams are always near the top of the league in offensive efficiency. Does that matter, or only that smush parker wasn't nursed into being the star he was destined to be?

Again, PS - what did you learn from this article? I don't mind if you found it interesting, but in the end, what did he say, other than he has an opinion about kobe not being that good?


----------



## Tragedy

Prolific Scorer said:


> Caron Butler, Lamar Odom and Ronnie Turiaf?
> 
> All played better without Kobe.


Caron Butler played 1 season, the Rudy Tomjanovic "let Kobe do whatever the hell he wants season." Also, if Caron could play better in Washington, he certainly would have played well with kobe. 

Lamar Odom played his overall best season in Miami. Difference? Nothing at stake. Just play to play and that's all. He went from playing on a happy go lucky team to a team looking to win, soon. As for Turiaf, there's not even much of a sample size for him. He played 18minutes max with LA. Not to mention to go from a team with title aspirations to a team that really has no goal or direction is a big difference. Stop reaching. Fact is, in his career as the lead he's missed the playoffs only ONCE. 

And he won a title pretty damn fast. Once he got real help (and that's all people ever asked, that he got help, not that he make some grand realization about life - even he admits his game hasn't changed THAT much) he won. That is amazing. People will point to the Pau trade, but what team has won with a superstar and no star beside him besides Hakeem?


----------



## Game3525

Prolific Scorer said:


> Caron Butler, Lamar Odom and Ronnie Turiaf?
> 
> All played better without Kobe.


Terrible logic, everyone knows Butler and Odom's stats are going to fall when they played with Kobe, and Turiaf is the same player now then he was in LA. And compared to other lead dogs of this decade, Kobe has been far more successful, he has only missed the playoffs once, which is something Lebron, AI, McGrady, Carter, Pierce cannot.

No offense this sounds like sourgrapes, lol!


----------



## GTA Addict

Cap said:


> That article doesn't even make sense, why would you arbitrarily equate assists-to-FGA that way? Reads like some guy straight out of high school algebra wrote it.


Actually, his formula is even worse than that, it's assists-to-points. He takes a player's average assists in his 40+ point games, 45+ point games, etc., and then subtracts that player's career average assists. He doesn't even factor in FGA. It's a very flawed stat.

Just for argument's sake:

Let's say Jordan scores 40 points on 20/*20* FG and has 4 assists. His career apg is 5.3, so his scoring/assist differential is 4 subtracted by 5.3, or -1.3.

Then let's say Kobe scores 40 points on 20/*40* FG and has 6 assists. His career apg is 4.6, so his scoring/assist differential is +1.4. Better than Jordan!

Going by the author's logic, this (extreme) data sample says Jordan was more selfish in his 40 point game, because his assists dropped from his career average, while Kobe's went up. Totally ignoring fga, fta, minutes played, pace, and so on... It makes zero sense, probably the worst stat I've ever seen.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

GTA Addict said:


> Actually, his formula is even worse than that, it's assists-to-points. He takes a player's average assists in his 40+ point games, 45+ point games, etc., and then subtracts that player's career average assists. He doesn't even factor in FGA. It's a very flawed stat.
> 
> Just for argument's sake:
> 
> Let's say Jordan scores 40 points on 20/*20* FG and has 4 assists. His career apg is 5.3, so his scoring/assist differential is 4 subtracted by 5.3, or -1.3.
> 
> Then let's say Kobe scores 40 points on 20/*40* FG and has 6 assists. His career apg is 4.6, so his scoring/assist differential is +1.4. Better than Jordan!
> 
> Going by the author's logic, this (extreme) data sample says Jordan was more selfish in his 40 point game, because his assists dropped from his career average, while Kobe's went up. Totally ignoring fga, fta, minutes played, pace, and so on... It makes zero sense, probably the worst stat I've ever seen.


And.... that's a wrap. :laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Caron Butler has said on several occasions that his time with Kobe is what made him a better player.


----------



## Tragedy

Sir Patchwork said:


> Caron Butler has said on several occasions that his time with Kobe is what made him a better player.


----------



## xoai

haters, you gotta love their passion


----------



## indiefan23

GTA Addict said:


> Actually, his formula is even worse than that, it's assists-to-points. He takes a player's average assists in his 40+ point games, 45+ point games, etc., and then subtracts that player's career average assists. He doesn't even factor in FGA. It's a very flawed stat.
> 
> Just for argument's sake:
> 
> Let's say Jordan scores 40 points on 20/*20* FG and has 4 assists. His career apg is 5.3, so his scoring/assist differential is 4 subtracted by 5.3, or -1.3.
> 
> Then let's say Kobe scores 40 points on 20/*40* FG and has 6 assists. His career apg is 4.6, so his scoring/assist differential is +1.4. Better than Jordan!
> 
> Going by the author's logic, this (extreme) data sample says Jordan was more selfish in his 40 point game, because his assists dropped from his career average, while Kobe's went up. Totally ignoring fga, fta, minutes played, pace, and so on... It makes zero sense, probably the worst stat I've ever seen.


Hmm... 3 points.

1. Actually, the stat is founded on quite sound principals. Because its comparing average assists for a period (not career) on the basis of point production it normalizes the data set accounting for random fluctuations for all behaviors (even things like food eaten before games) except the variable, scoring. Kobe may hit 20/20 and MJ 20/40 for a single game and for that one game it would be a very poor indicator indeed. However its a cumulative stat, not a line from a box score, and the next game where Kobe/MJ reversed the results, and the next with similar results, would balance the data, hence normalize it.

2. Assists and FG% are an inherently linked category. If you make good decisions with the ball it means you'll only be shooting when you have a high probability of a positive outcome and pass when someone else has a higher probability of scoring. Assists and FG% tend to rise together.

3. Since this trend is the case, the flaw you claim is ironic. Factoring that in would only serve to amplify the results by counting every bad decesion against a player twice. Say a forced shot. Its a lowered assist percentage (accounted for once in the stat) and a low percentage attempt (not accounted for).

Kobe shoots the worst percentage of all the listed players and raises his FG% half as much as almost everyone. Factoring this in would make him look much, much worse. It may serve to make the distinctions between play more visible in the resulting numbers, but its not going to change the results. I'm willing to bet my mother's life, at gunpoint, that you would like the stat less and criticize it more if it worked the way you suggested. Which leads me to suggest that you don't really have a problem with the method, which is based on sound statistical fundamentals, but the results, which are based on the play of Kobe Bryant.


----------



## Venom110

> Since this trend is the case, the flaw you claim is ironic. Factoring that in would only serve to amplify the results by counting every bad decesion against a player twice. Say a forced shot. Its a lowered assist percentage (accounted for once in the stat) and a low percentage attempt (not accounted for).


IMO, a missed shot doesn't necessarily indicate a low percentage attempt. Kobe is probably the best jump shooter included in the comparisons. Because of his ultimate confidence in his jumper, he does become jump-shot happy at times, which could explain his lower shooting percentage. This is especially evident when the team is trailing and he tries to shoot them back into the game. 



> Kobe shoots the worst percentage of all the listed players and raises his FG% half as much as almost everyone. Factoring this in would make him look much, much worse...
> 
> Wade just had career highs in scoring, assists, blocks and steals and was .7 behind in boards on a far worse team. Everyone on Miami improved. Watch out for next year. With developed players LA wins that title vs rival Boston. They win this year. They probably beat PHX one year, maybe even beat the clippers in a historic LA only series and make the conference finals. That one guy totally carrying his team performance is whats sorely lacking from Kobe's resume. Its not winning without Shaq thats eluded him, its winning like MJ. While he's won, and will win again, he's never been able to elevate a team above par for that team's ability.


I think Miami was ousted in the First Round by the 4-seed in the Eastern Conference. I also think Lebron's highly touted 66-win team was ousted in the ECF's by the 3rd Seed. Kobe's team just won the Championship, 1 year after losing in the NBA Finals... It really seems like some double standards are at work here, But it is definitely nice to have you here FCP!


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

Sir Patchwork said:


> Caron Butler has said on several occasions that his time with Kobe is what made him a better player.


So did Ariza, but what do they know? Stats>Personal life changing experience.


----------



## Drewbs

Why have people not yet grasped the fact that the Lakers play an offense based on every player passing the ball?

What stats will never account for is all those passes that Kobe makes that initiates a sequence of 1 or more additional passes that lead to open shots all created off the defensive attention he commands, or the plays where he is used as a decoy to create openings in the defense for his teammates, and directing them without ever even having the ball on the possession. 

People will make a big whoop about Lebron's assist numbers, but the one man offense does not show unselfishness, I'm more concerned with Lebron's ability to allow other players to create offense for him or to take himself out of a play and act as a decoy to open up the floor for others rather than taking the ball and attacking every possession down the floor and forcing his teammates make shots of his passes. They never win anything against good teams playing that kind of ball, and yet somehow that makes him more unselfish?


----------



## Wayne

lol at this article, this guy comes up with the most convoluted ways to diminish Kobe's contribution towards his championship teams

When you are feeling it, and you know you are going to score 50, I feel it is logical for any player to not pass the ball and go into iso mode. When I see him saying that Arenas and Iverson have less assist differential than Kobe, it just makes me think that a)randomness is too much of a factor or b)this guy is a retard.

When I saw that he was saying that Vujacic and Brian Cook were good role players that is game over, just stopped reading. Both are the definition of mediocre players, can they get more mediocre?


----------



## indiefan23

Drewbs said:


> Why have people not yet grasped the fact that the Lakers play an offense based on every player passing the ball?
> 
> What stats will never account for is all those passes that Kobe makes that initiates a sequence of 1 or more additional passes that lead to open shots all created off the defensive attention he commands, or the plays where he is used as a decoy to create openings in the defense for his teammates, and directing them without ever even having the ball on the possession.


Hi Drewbs... I think you should take a closer look at the article. The stat is not an assist stat like APG where a team's offense can affect the numbers. While I'm not sure if the triangle would affect his dime numbers that much (Jordan saw a .2 decrease from years in and out of the triangle, for instance) the triangle does not factor into this stat at all as its a measure of their assist differential at scoring intervals against average. Lebron's number is generated against Lebron, and Kobe's against Kobe's playing in their respective systems which allows you to compare them without the bias of things like offensive systems. In the article there is a section called "The Triangle" that might be a little more clear then what I just said. Cheers.


----------



## indiefan23

Wayne said:


> lol at this article, this guy comes up with the most convoluted ways to diminish Kobe's contribution towards his championship teams
> 
> When you are feeling it, and you know you are going to score 50, I feel it is logical for any player to not pass the ball and go into iso mode. When I see him saying that Arenas and Iverson have less assist differential than Kobe, it just makes me think that a)randomness is too much of a factor or b)this guy is a retard.
> 
> When I saw that he was saying that Vujacic and Brian Cook were good role players that is game over, just stopped reading. Both are the definition of mediocre players, can they get more mediocre?


Hmm... those assertions are not valid. I suggest you read it again, and the whole thing. Its quite a common and easy to follow method, no? Where does it get convoluted? Much more concise then something like PER or +/-


----------



## Theonee

The guy comparing players assists to points that player would have scored if he did not pass, is like entertainment industries comparing file downloads to automatic money that they lost.

Also comparing assist numbers of Kobe and Lebron is not fair, because Kobe plays in Triangle offense where lots of Hockey type assists happens, where as Lebron just dribbles, dribbles and dribbles and kicks it out to an open man.
Lebron is more ball dominant and stats show that.
Hollinger Playoff Stats: Usage Rate - All Positions 
RNK Player GP Min TS% Ast TO Usg ORR DRR RebR PER VA EWA 
1 Tony Parker, SAS 5 36.2 .588 19.2 11.9 35.4 0.6 14.1 7.0 29.37 49.6 1.7 
2 LeBron James, CLE 14 41.4 .618 18.9 7.0 33.4 4.3 23.6 14.2 37.43 233.2 7.8 
3 Dwyane Wade, MIA 7 40.7 .565 15.3 10.3 32.8 1.9 12.8 7.8 26.35 67.4 2.2 
4 Will Bynum, DET 4 19.5 .541 16.3 13.0 29.8 1.6 8.7 5.0 19.93 10.4 0.3 
5 Kobe Bryant, LAL 23 40.9 .563 15.7 7.4 29.7 2.4 12.8 7.6 26.86 229.5 7.6 

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...nger/statistics?sort=usg&pos=all&seasonType=3


----------



## indiefan23

Theonee said:


> The guy comparing players assists to points that player would have scored if he did not pass, is like entertainment industries comparing file downloads to automatic money that they lost.


Umm... its nothing like that. Passing a basketball is not a response to a socio-economic phenomenon undergoing a distribution revolution. Its much simpler to quantify accurately.



> Also comparing assist numbers of Kobe and Lebron is not fair, because Kobe plays in Triangle offense where lots of Hockey type assists happens, where as Lebron just dribbles, dribbles and dribbles and kicks it out to an open man.


Its actually totally fair as the number of assists you get has no bearing on how you fare in this stat. Such a stat normalizes the offensive system. As I said in the post above the triangle offense's non-effect on th stat is covered in detail in the article and has it's own section.

The notion that the triangle offense reduce's player's assists is largely fabricated however and not based on real data, at least no one who's claimed this has ever provided me with anything substantive. Kobe playing full seasons as a starter has averaged from 3.8-6.0 assists. Also as pointed out in the article, Michael Jordan saw only a .2 assist drop playing in the triangle. That's despite playing less minutes in a drastically slower paced game. IE: The triangle actually increases assist opportunities for a scorer. Every offense uses the hockey assist when they swing the ball.

People like to claim that points average less assists in the triangle, they do, but that's because in the triangle the offense is initiated through the post (hence it's other name, the triple post offense) and they really don't utilize point guard in the traditional sense for almost any of their sets. If you actually know or can show that the triangle does have this effect I'd love to see it. I 



> Lebron is more ball dominant and stats show that.
> Hollinger Playoff Stats: Usage Rate - All Positions
> RNK Player GP Min TS% Ast TO Usg ORR DRR RebR PER VA EWA
> 1 Tony Parker, SAS 5 36.2 .588 19.2 11.9 35.4 0.6 14.1 7.0 29.37 49.6 1.7
> 2 LeBron James, CLE 14 41.4 .618 18.9 7.0 33.4 4.3 23.6 14.2 37.43 233.2 7.8
> 3 Dwyane Wade, MIA 7 40.7 .565 15.3 10.3 32.8 1.9 12.8 7.8 26.35 67.4 2.2
> 4 Will Bynum, DET 4 19.5 .541 16.3 13.0 29.8 1.6 8.7 5.0 19.93 10.4 0.3
> 5 Kobe Bryant, LAL 23 40.9 .563 15.7 7.4 29.7 2.4 12.8 7.6 26.86 229.5 7.6


Hmm... I don't think that stat really shows 'ball dominance' at all. Its usage which actually goes up when you get assists. To say a stat that goes up due to dimes indicates a player dominating the ball is kind of disingenuous. Tony Parker is not a ball dominating point guard, and by no means #1. I'm not sure why you'd bring it up honestly, considering that its 'this' kind of stat that varies greatly depending on the offensive system.

_Usg Usage Rate is the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)_

If you want to say Kobe's better at protecting the ball, but inferior at getting assists and does not draw fouls as well as Lebron, then I'm cool accepting that.

Lastly, the stat covers all the years Kobe has been his team's best player and that's the topic being discussed. I fail to see the relevance of 1 year to the discussion.


----------



## Cap

Haha, wow, there is literally so much wrong with this article (and I literally do mean wrong, as in factually inaccurate, with some truly terrible analysis to boot), that I don't know where to start. I wouldn't even have bothered had this joker not decided to sign up and post here. But since he did....

There's one gem toward the end of the article, one of dozens of poorly worded, poorly thought-out critiques of Bryant's game that reads: _Kobe Bryant - You've got to add Kobe. Love or hate him, he's a fantastic talent and has to count as more then one guy. Kobe can win any game all by himself. Subtle difference: I think he tries to win every game by himself. Result: 33, 45 and 42 win seasons. He had good complementary players, *championship level role players,* the best coach in history. 3 games under .500 over 3 seasons result._

He curiously focuses only on the 04-07 period, clearly due to win totals, and proceeds to pimp the Lakers' supporting cast during this period. Two things jump out that are pretty funny. First one; the Lakers won 34 games in 04-05 under Rudy T. and then Frank Hamblin when Rudy T resigned, not Phil Jackson, who didn't coach until 05-06. 

But secondly, and much more importantly, the Lakers had championship role players? Huh? What's truly comical about the article is that it mentions only some of the better players on the Lakers while ignoring significant rotation players and even ignoring some _starters over multiple seasons_. Here are the starters he happens to mention: 

- Kwame Brown: 92 starts in 2 and a half injury-riddled seasons. A terrible offensive player, often hurt, inconsistent defensively but sometimes solid. A player who wasn't wanted by the Memphis Grizzlies after he was traded for Pau Gasol last season. Still barely in the league with few suitors other than as a warm body for 6 fouls. Yet here is what this article had to say about him: _In Washington he had a 11/7.5/46% year. In 06 he improved playing less minutes, shot 52% overall, > 60% in 11 of his last 20 games, averaged 8 boards and had a large string of +10 board games. He's a big reason they took PHX to 7 and carried them in multiple games. *One game he had a 19/6/2 blk 60% FG game that was full of potential.* Overall 13 pts, 6.5 brds. 56% FG. 70% if you exclude two bad games you expect from raw players. One bad game they won and the other was the game 7 team collapse, including Kobe. Even in 07 he put up 11/8 per 36 minutes on 59% shooting. *No Shaq but he wasn't giving you nothing. Its a myth.*_

You can't make this stuff up. 

- Smush Parker: started 162 games out of 164 possible during two seasons (06 and 07). Currently no longer in the league. At all. Got booted within weeks from the Miami Heat. They actually _ate_ his $5M contract. Here's what the article had to say about Smush: _Great athlete. *The guy had ups.* All young prospects have downs, *but man he could get up.* Undeniable potential and shot a very respectable 44% in LA. No superstar but a very decent role player with heaps of potential. By year 2 his game started slipping and you could watch confidence peel off of him by the game. *If Kobe spent more time building Smush up what could he have been? Parker has publicly stated that Kobe made his time on LA miserable despite him putting up good numbers."*_

Apparently Kobe Bryant is the reason Smush Parker isn't in the league? Holy hell. 

- Luke Walton: Missed 56 games during the period (04-07) the article claims Bryant had championship caliber teammates. Had PERs of 11.4, 11.6, and 14.7, not even average #'s, consistently below average without question (15 = league average #'s). Entire game revolves around making good decisions and passing, which he can indeed do. It's the other stuff like shooting, rebounding, scoring, and the other half of the game, defending, that Luke struggles with. Here is what the article had to say about Walton: _Great, above average passer. Always has been. Can change a game without taking a shot. 12/5.5/5.5 45% per 36 minutes are very, very good numbers for a guy coming off your bench 20-25 minutes a game. Good enough to be rotation player on championship team (tomorrow)._

At least he doesn't claim Luke Walton was as good as his dad. 

- Sasha Vujacic: Here's what the article had to say about Vujacic: _What more do you want? In 07-08 he shot 45%, 44% from 3, scored 17 ppg per 36 minutes and is positively a very above average defender. A full court pest if you will. Improved every year till the finals. Maybe if Kobe wasn't calling him She She 'The Machine' to the national media, calling him his little brother (which he hated himself viaShaq) and glaring at him every 3'rd play he would not have lost his confidence? You know he shot 92% from the line, right? As a role player, Vujacic was very good._

This is so comical it's almost vomit-inducing. Forget the fact that "The Machine" was a moniker given by play-by-play Laker broadcaster Joel Myers, and realize that this guy just wrote that Kobe Bryant shouldn't glare at a player that just came off a 39%FG%/36%3-pt% season (12.6 PER, well below average), who didn't make a shot in the just completely NBA Finals and posted 28%, 35%, and 39% shooting seasons during the pre-Gasol years in question (04-07). 

Some starters conveniently not mentioned in the article: 

- Chucky Atkins: PER of 13.4 during his season as starter for all 82 games. One of the worst defenders at his position. His backup, Tierre Brown, is no longer in the league, at all. Was lovingly nicknamed Terrible Clown by Laker fans. Had a PER of 9.4 during his lone season with the Lakers in 04-05 as Chucky's backup. This was statistically the worst PG rotation since the Lakers moved to Los Angeles in 1960. I'm not joking. 

- Chris Mihm: No longer in the league and might retire due to multiple ankle surgeries. Never posted a PER higher than 15.7 during his entire career. This motherf*cker started 136 games for the Lakers between the 04-07 period in question. One hundred, and thirty six. Terrible hands, made some impressive strides for his limited skillset, but still the prototypical white boy dunce. 

The article does mention two, actually _good_ players, in Butler and Odom:

- Caron Butler: Was in fact a nice player for the Lakers, but overall he in fact posted a PER of 15.8 and was't really effective without the ball in his hands, couldn't play-make at that point. Was a limited defender at the time, but definitely got better. Here is what the article had to say about him: _All star caliber player. LA fans don't mention that Odom/Butler were on Kobe's team at the same time. The previous year Dwayne Wade, as a rookie, and with Caron/Lamar as his second/third best players almost got them to the east finals. I repeat, he was a rookie. Kobe's team won 33 games. There's a variety of reasons but one of them has got to be Kobe and his change in style. None of them excuse 33 wins with 3 all star caliber players._

Well of course, for one, Butler was not by any stretch of the imagination an All Star caliber player in 04-05, and in the 03-04 season he's referring to where they "almost" (not really) got to the East Finals, Butler in fact had the worst season of his career, posting a 10.7 PER and being injured most of the season. Of course, no mention is made of that fact in the article, or how it contradicts the notion that Bryant's style in any way contributed to Caron's lack of success. No mention either that Eddie Jones and Brian Grant were instrumental in the Heat's success in the East, players the Lakers did not have in 04-05. 

- Lamar Odom: The best complimentary role player on the Lakers, indeed. Also the most maddeningly inconsistent of them all. Between the years in question, 04-07, Odom was asked to fill the 2nd option role which he failed miserably at. When relegated to 3rd/4th option with the Gasol trade and Bynum when he was healthy, he flourished and the Lakers went to two Finals and won a title. For once, his comments were halfway sane about LO: _I don't think needs to be said. He's a top tier player and one of the most versatile years. All-star calibre who didn't make it in due to a loaded west at his position. Match up nightmare and a top complementary glue guy. Odom as #2 or #3 can win games by himself with or without scoring points. He fills in any gap your team has on a given night. What more do you want?_

But mean really now, the list of crap spewed from this trash article really is quite impressive. I'd spend more time ripping the rest to shreds, but honestly, I won't unless the kid who wrote this article comes back for more. I didn't even get to the good stuff, where he pimps bums like Brian Cook, lovingly called "Puppy Crap" by a local L.A. radio host.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... 3 points.
> 
> 1. Actually, the stat is founded on quite sound principals. Because its comparing average assists for a period (not career) on the basis of point production it normalizes the data set accounting for random fluctuations for all behaviors (even things like food eaten before games) except the variable, scoring. Kobe may hit 20/20 and MJ 20/40 for a single game and for that one game it would be a very poor indicator indeed. However its a cumulative stat, not a line from a box score, and the next game where Kobe/MJ reversed the results, and the next with similar results, would balance the data, hence normalize it.


Except cumulative stats are limited by circumstances, and your stats are limited in sample size and scope, and you even list the fact that when Bryant scores 40+ ppg his team's winning % increases substantially. The point of the game is to outscore your opponent, so regardless of how its done, if scoring 40+ improves team winning %'s, it's within reason to note that he has accomplished that ultimate goal. Equating points with assists the way you are and drawing the conclusion that Bryant is selfish isn't actually proven the stat, which is bunk in the first place since the end goal, as you _admit_, is achieved (winning games). You don't even give an explanation for how Bryant's team continues to win at a higher rate when he posts 40+ points (of course, I'm not suggesting they're better off when he scores 40+, only that it certainly isn't anywhere near the consistently selfish act you claim it is). 



> 2. Assists and FG% are an inherently linked category. If you make good decisions with the ball it means you'll only be shooting when you have a high probability of a positive outcome and pass when someone else has a higher probability of scoring. Assists and FG% tend to rise together.


Who says assists and FG% rise together and what are you basing that on? With the Lakers, for example, Bryant averaged the most assists of his career in 04-05, 6.0 apg, yet also had the lowest FG% of his career as a starter in 04-05. The whole concept of an assist changes drastically year-to-year and depending on the system. You can't isolate that variable for Bryant or Wade or most other players because they have changed coaches, systems, and most importantly the quality of the talent around them frequently during their careers. 



> Kobe shoots the worst percentage of all the listed players and raises his FG% half as much as almost everyone. Factoring this in would make him look much, much worse. It may serve to make the distinctions between play more visible in the resulting numbers, but its not going to change the results. I'm willing to bet my mother's life, at gunpoint, that you would like the stat less and criticize it more if it worked the way you suggested. Which leads me to suggest that you don't really have a problem with the method, which is based on sound statistical fundamentals, but the results, which are based on the play of Kobe Bryant.


I'd also be willing to bet my mother's life, at gunpoint, that you wrote this article and that you dislike the criticism of your bunk statistical analysis due to your inherent dislike of said player, Kobe Bryant. I'd bet money on it, in fact.


----------



## Cap

I mean seriously, the more I read the more entertaining it gets. Here's your "conclusion": 



> Even with Shaqless rings there are buts. But he was best as a side kick. But he shot his favored team out of the finals on a 39 point losing effort. But nothin. There are no buts for Jordan. Magic. Bird. Isiah. Kareem. West. Soon enough, Lebron. They dominated to win and lose. They accomplished everything they set out to do and carried mediocre players to success and successful players to greatness... but they always carried them and were never 'held back' by them if you get my drift.
> 
> I truly relate and feel for the guy. No one actually enjoys seeing people who clearly put in effort lose, or I don't. The guy is kind of alone because no one else is like him. Kobe set out to be the best ever and win by totally carrying a team on his back like all those others he felt challenged by... wait for it... but, 09 title or not... he failed.


Yes, Bryant is the ultimate example of failure, that's why the Lakers won a title last week; because Bryant was a failure. 

Er, yeah.


----------



## Game3525

Drewbs said:


> Why have people not yet grasped the fact that the Lakers play an offense based on every player passing the ball?
> 
> What stats will never account for is all those passes that Kobe makes that initiates a sequence of 1 or more additional passes that lead to open shots all created off the defensive attention he commands, or the plays where he is used as a decoy to create openings in the defense for his teammates, and directing them without ever even having the ball on the possession.
> 
> People will make a big whoop about Lebron's assist numbers, but the one man offense does not show unselfishness, I'm more concerned with Lebron's ability to allow other players to create offense for him or to take himself out of a play and act as a decoy to open up the floor for others rather than taking the ball and attacking every possession down the floor and forcing his teammates make shots of his passes. They never win anything against good teams playing that kind of ball, and yet somehow that makes him more unselfish?



Assist are the most overrated stat aside from FG%. I rather have a player average 4-5 on set passing offense, then a guy dominate the ball with 7-8. Guys, like AI, Lebron get high assist numbers due to the fact the offense starts and ends with them. Kobe is never going to get high assist numbers over the course of the season due to the fact his offemse deals with ball movement.


----------



## Game3525

Cap said:


> Except cumulative stats are limited by circumstances, and your stats are limited in sample size and scope, and you even list the fact that when Bryant scores 40+ ppg his team's winning % increases substantially. The point of the game is to outscore your opponent, so regardless of how its done, if scoring 40+ improves team winning %'s, it's within reason to note that he has accomplished that ultimate goal. Equating points with assists the way you are and drawing the conclusion that Bryant is selfish isn't actually proven the stat, which is bunk in the first place since the end goal, as you _admit_, is achieved (winning games). You don't even give an explanation for how Bryant's team continues to win at a higher rate when he posts 40+ points (of course, I'm not suggesting they're better off when he scores 40+, only that it certainly isn't anywhere near the consistently selfish act you claim it is).
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says assists and FG% rise together and what are you basing that on? With the Lakers, for example, Bryant averaged the most assists of his career in 04-05, 6.0 apg, yet also had the lowest FG% of his career as a starter in 04-05. The whole concept of an assist changes drastically year-to-year and depending on the system. You can't isolate that variable for Bryant or Wade or most other players because they have changed coaches, systems, and most importantly the quality of the talent around them frequently during their careers. *
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also be willing to bet my mother's life, at gunpoint, that you wrote this article and that you dislike the criticism of your bunk statistical analysis due to your inherent dislike of said player, Kobe Bryant. I'd bet money on it, in fact.



Bingo, I can give you the prefect example of that. Allen Iverson. AI assist numbers began to climb in the 6-7 range the minute Larry Brown and Eric Snow left town. The difference wasn't AI being less selfish, but a new offensive system that moved him into lead guard. You are 100% right on the money on this Cap.

Plus, AI shot only 42% and averaged his most assist in his career with 8 APG.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Bingo, I can give you the prefect example of that. Allen Iverson. AI assist numbers began to climb in the 6-7 range the minute Larry Brown and Eric Snow left town. The difference wasn't AI being less selfish, but a new offensive system that moved him into lead guard. You are 100% right on the money on this Cap.
> 
> Plus, AI shot only 42% and averaged his most assist in his career with 8 APG.


You guys are awesome, taking years when Iverson was playing hurt to say its crap. ;0 Thanks for the compliment with that weak slam.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> You guys are awesome, taking years when Iverson was playing hurt to say its crap. ;0 Thanks for the compliment with that weak slam.


Buddy, I love AI his is my favorite player of this era. And he wasn't injured in 2004-2005 when he avereged 30-4-8, my point in bringing it up is high assist numbers don't equal a higher shooting percentage. And I have said FG% is overrated in part because guys like Iverson and Bryant have the ability to get a decent shot of from any where on the court. AI averaged a career high in assist in 04-05, but still shot nearly the same percentage during his MVP season where he only averaged a shade under five a game, which proves that high assist numbers don't always mean you will shoot a higher precentage.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> You guys are awesome, taking years when Iverson was playing hurt to say its crap. ;0 Thanks for the compliment with that weak slam.


don't you understand - you started with your own hypothesis - kobe sucks, and you invented a stat that fit your hypothesis. it's laughable. i mean, fg%???? seriously??? maybe this type of stuff will get you a mention from skip or bill, but please don't try and pass it off as anything other than junk. ast to points in 40+ games??? i mean, how absurd can you get. it doesn't pass a laugh test. but hey, you figured something out. got yourself a stat! way to go.


----------



## Game3525

The guy loses his cred the minute he blames Kobe for Sasha being garbage, even though Sasha usually plays with the second unit when Kobe is getting a breather. Lmao, you can't sinking any lower then that! What is even more pathetic is this tool is trying to advertise this crap!

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135853


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... those assertions are not valid. I suggest you read it again, and the whole thing. Its quite a common and easy to follow method, no? Where does it get convoluted? Much more concise then something like PER or +/-


This is your article, huh? Admit it.


----------



## Tragedy

Also, I'm pretty sure Kobe can average 8 assists per game if he wanted to. Check the finals for instance. The difference is, Lebron plays in an offense where he completely dominates the ball and is told to be responsible for everything. Same with Wade. The point is proved with MJ having lower stats than them too. Kobe is not asked to be the primary and only playmaker.


----------



## Game3525

Tragedy said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure Kobe can average 8 assists per game if he wanted to. Check the finals for instance. The difference is, Lebron plays in an offense where he completely dominates the ball and is told to be responsible for everything. Same with Wade. The point is proved with MJ having lower stats than them too. Kobe is not asked to be the primary and only playmaker.


Bingo, that is why I said assist are overrated. You can take AI, Wade, an Lebron's assist with a grain of salt. It is far more impressive to average 5 assist in a set offense then to average 8 when you dominate the ball. I am glad I don't have classes today, it is fun watching this article get torn to shreds.


----------



## Ras

Tragedy said:


> This is your article, huh? Admit it.





> Indiefan23 are you affiliated with that website by any chance? Or maybe, are you the author of that article and that's why you totally agree with its content?
> 
> I'm just asking cause clicking on your username and going to your homepage leads directly to www.fullcourtpest.com.





indiefan23 said:


> Ah, I'm not really hiding it am I? ;0


..


----------



## Ras

Indiefan, what does the stat actually prove to you?


----------



## lakeshows

Ras said:


> Indiefan, what does the stat actually prove to you?


Probably that Kobe is more of a scorer than a playmaker? :whoknows: Although I think we all knew that.

I also don't think Kobe shooting more is detrimental to his team. We all know his team sucked post-Shaq and pre-Gasol so he took a ton of shots (and scored a ton of points).

He's not like Magic Johnson or Lebron. He doesn't initiate the offense and he doesn't pass it around as much. He's like MJ. He _is_ the offense. He just isn't _quite_ as good as MJ.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> This is your article, huh? Admit it.


Umm... admit what, its not obvious? If I was going to try and hide it I think I've got the capacity upstairs to keep it from people. I saw a backlink here and wanted to see how it was holding up in the discussion. So far, I'm pretty happy. I don't think I've yet to see anyone who's not a Kobe Stan slam it, and everyone's avoiding actually talking about the stat itself and instead are making misguided assertions about offensive systems making points thoroughly covered in the article.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> don't you understand - you started with your own hypothesis - kobe sucks, and you invented a stat that fit your hypothesis. it's laughable. i mean, fg%???? seriously??? maybe this type of stuff will get you a mention from skip or bill, but please don't try and pass it off as anything other than junk. ast to points in 40+ games??? i mean, how absurd can you get. it doesn't pass a laugh test. but hey, you figured something out. got yourself a stat! way to go.


I didn't do that at all actually, unless you just think I'm a liar, which I'm not, but if you do there is not much point in talking. I made the spreadsheet I used without looking at Kobe's numbers once just so when people said I was 'proving it with stats' I could give this exact response. I had no idea it would be as damning as it was. I suspected that everyone's assists would go down actually and Kobe's would go down a lot. I didn't expect Allen Iverson to kill him... at all.

As for >40 points. Its you guys who claimed for years and years that "Kobe has to score that many points for them to win" except he's scoring those points on 33 average win teams, and the wins against teams who are over 37 wins 1. shot 13% from 3 and 2. were missing their best player when he was integral to their team.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> The guy loses his cred the minute he blames Kobe for Sasha being garbage, even though Sasha usually plays with the second unit when Kobe is getting a breather. Lmao, you can't sinking any lower then that! What is even more pathetic is this tool is trying to advertise this crap!


Sasha is not garbage at all. I mean, how many lakers are you going to throw under the bus to defend this guy? Vujacic is a great defender and hits his 3's. He 'is' a championship role player because he won a championship AND got to the finals playing a role. Last year he was a huge part of the team's success till Kobe shot them out of the finals jacking 3's for 28%. Its as simple as that.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... admit what, its not obvious? If I was going to try and hide it I think I've got the capacity upstairs to keep it from people. I saw a backlink here and wanted to see how it was holding up in the discussion. So far, I'm pretty happy. I don't think I've yet to see anyone who's not a Kobe Stan slam it, and everyone's avoiding actually talking about the stat itself and instead are making misguided assertions about offensive systems making points thoroughly covered in the article.


How can anyone take you seriously when you think Kobe killed Smush Parker's career. Ironically Smush played his best ball with Kobe and the Lakers 2005-07. The man can't even hold down a roster spot on the Clippers. So everyone who thinks your article is garbage is a Kobe fan? Perharps people are just smarter then you expected.


----------



## Plastic Man

Cap said:


> I mean seriously, the more I read the more entertaining it gets. Here's your "conclusion":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even with Shaqless rings there are buts. But he was best as a side kick. But he shot his favored team out of the finals on a 39 point losing effort. But nothin. There are no buts for Jordan. Magic. Bird. Isiah. Kareem. West. Soon enough, Lebron. They dominated to win and lose. They accomplished everything they set out to do and carried mediocre players to success and successful players to greatness... but they always carried them and were never 'held back' by them if you get my drift.
> 
> I truly relate and feel for the guy. No one actually enjoys seeing people who clearly put in effort lose, or I don't. The guy is kind of alone because no one else is like him. Kobe set out to be the best ever and win by totally carrying a team on his back like all those others he felt challenged by... wait for it... but, 09 title or not... he failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Bryant is the ultimate example of failure, that's why the Lakers won a title last week; because Bryant was a failure.
> 
> Er, yeah.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a great one. West was what, 1 for 9 in the Finals? Other than Jordan I don't know who didn't experience a loss on the grandest stage. I'll take Kobe's 4/6 and him being labeled a failure thank you very much.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Sasha is not garbage at all. I mean, how many lakers are you going to throw under the bus to defend this guy? Vujacic is a great defender and hits his 3's. He 'is' a championship role player because he won a championship AND got to the finals playing a role. Last year he was a huge part of the team's success till Kobe shot them out of the finals jacking 3's for 28%. Its as simple as that.


Sasha didn't even score a point this final series, so how does that make him a championship level role player, he shot under 40% for the year, LA would have moved on without him. The guy hasn't played well the whole year, his shot has been off. He got plenty of open looks and did not knock them done. Also the Lakers did not lose the finals due to Kobe's shooting per se, but for the fact they could not control the paint. KG and Powe made Pau and Lamar look like sissys, Kobe could have shot better no doubt. But that was not the main reason they lose, any logical person can see that.

P.S Kobe shot 32% from three and the team shot 34$, at least get your stats right.


----------



## Game3525

Plastic Man said:


> *Wow, that's a great one. West was what, 1 for 9 in the Finals?* Other than Jordan I don't know who didn't experience a loss on the grandest stage. I'll take Kobe's 4/6 and him being labeled a failure thank you very much.


Lmao, and he is Mr. Logo, Mr. Clutch. Wilbon was right for once, he would be killed by today's media.


----------



## indiefan23

lakeshows said:


> Probably that Kobe is more of a scorer than a playmaker? :whoknows: Although I think we all knew that.
> 
> I also don't think Kobe shooting more is detrimental to his team. We all know his team sucked post-Shaq and pre-Gasol so he took a ton of shots (and scored a ton of points).
> 
> He's not like Magic Johnson or Lebron. He doesn't initiate the offense and he doesn't pass it around as much. He's like MJ. He _is_ the offense. He just isn't _quite_ as good as MJ.


Thanks for being reasonable. I've gotta say that MJ was a fantastic, great stellar play maker. Doug Collins played MJ at the point for 20 games and he averaged over a triple double every 2 games. But that really does not have anything to do with Kobe, nor do I think Kobe's gotta live up to MJ now that he's accepted he's not better then him and can't get to that level.

See, I don't think his team did suck post Shaq or pre-Gasol. In 08 they were 15 games over .500 in January after Kobe realized that even if he forced a trade the team that got him would have to give up so much he's be in the same or worse position. Then he tried to win with those guys and they started winning.

Having a guy like Lamar Odom on your team is more then many, many superstars have today. Having him with Caron Butler is 'way' more then many stars. Having specialty role guys like Walton who puts up great stats per 36 minutes is good. And even Smush wasn't nearly as good bad as someone like Eric Snow was on the cavs. I don't accept that guys like Jordan Farmar and Sasha were no talents because I've seen them play great in LA and elsewhere.

I really do appreciate the non-hate response though. Hmm... which players do you think totally sucked and dragged Kobe down, and why do you think that? I'm curious, and since you're not just being a jerk, I promise I'll be fair.  cheers!


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> See, I don't think his team did suck post Shaq or pre-Gasol. In 08 they were 15 games over .500 in January after Kobe realized that even if he forced a trade the team that got him would have to give up so much he's be in the same or worse position. Then he tried to win with those guys and they started winning.


What? Kobe is the consummate professional. He came out firing from day one of that season despite his rant and turmoil. It's not Vince Carter we're talking about here. If you're trying to suggest he wasn't trying to win post Shaq and in the first 3 months of the 2007/08 season I suggest you stop posting all together. Opinions are fine and dandy. Making up stuff isn't.



indiefan23 said:


> Having a guy like Lamar Odom on your team is more then many, many superstars have today. Having him with Caron Butler is 'way' more then many stars.


Yes, it is. You do realize that it was a year in which we changed coaches monthly and Kobe himself suffered severe injuries coming back before he was 100% just to play? It was a horrible year by all means, but putting that on Kobe is almost a big a fallacy as putting the 15 win Heat team exclusively on Wade. 



indiefan23 said:


> Having specialty role guys like Walton who puts up great stats per 36 minutes is good.


Per 36 minutes stats are worthless if the player only plays for 20 some minutes. He was great. For one year. Contract year, coincidentally. And then he couldn't hit the broad side of the barn anymore, becamce incompetent at throwing inbound passes and couldn't guard a chair anymore. He was more than solid in this year's Playoffs... before that, not so much.



indiefan23 said:


> I don't accept that guys like Jordan Farmar and Sasha were no talents because I've seen them play great in LA and elsewhere.


It doesn't really matter what you accept to tell you the truth. Especially considering both of the mentioned players are with the Lakers since draft day so I don't really know where they played great (unless you're talking overseas - Sasha; or UCLA - Jordan, but I highly doubt that). Sasha sucked immenselly for every year expect last year (yeah, contract year again). 

Anyway, bad analysis.

I really do appreciate the non-hate response though. Hmm... which players do you think totally sucked and dragged Kobe down, and why do you think that? I'm curious, and since you're not just being a jerk, I promise I'll be fair.  cheers![/QUOTE]


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Thanks for being reasonable. I've gotta say that MJ was a fantastic, great stellar play maker. Doug Collins played MJ at the point for 20 games and he averaged over a triple double every 2 games. But that really does not have anything to do with Kobe, nor do I think Kobe's gotta live up to MJ now that he's accepted he's not better then him and can't get to that level.
> 
> See, I don't think his team did suck post Shaq or pre-Gasol. In 08 they were 15 games over .500 in January after Kobe realized that even if he forced a trade the team that got him would have to give up so much he's be in the same or worse position. Then he tried to win with those guys and they started winning.
> 
> *Having a guy like Lamar Odom on your team is more then many, many superstars have today. Having him with Caron Butler is 'way' more then many stars. Having specialty role guys like Walton who puts up great stats per 36 minutes is good. And even Smush wasn't nearly as good bad as someone like Eric Snow was on the cavs. I don't accept that guys like Jordan Farmar and Sasha were no talents because I've seen them play great in LA and elsewhere.*
> 
> I really do appreciate the non-hate response though. Hmm... which players do you think totally sucked and dragged Kobe down, and why do you think that? I'm curious, and since you're not just being a jerk, I promise I'll be fair.  cheers!



This is the problem, you are totally overrating these role players. Lamar Odom is as talented as they come, his major problem wasn't Kobe Bryant it was the fact that he has never been consistent. He could go off for 25-10-7 and then have trouble cracking double digits the next couple of games. Butler himself actually played better with LA in 2005 then he did with the Heat in 2004. the 04-05 Lakers main problems were injuries and defensive inepptitude. Kobe and Lamar missed a combinded 35 games during a critical stretch of the season. Walton is decent player, yes but you can replace him. Farmer and Sasha have been bench players their whole career, Farmer is decent, and Sasha useless. You can replace this guys and not lose a beat.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> I didn't do that at all actually, unless you just think I'm a liar, which I'm not, but if you do there is not much point in talking. I made the spreadsheet I used without looking at Kobe's numbers once just so when people said I was 'proving it with stats' I could give this exact response. I had no idea it would be as damning as it was. I suspected that everyone's assists would go down actually and Kobe's would go down a lot. I didn't expect Allen Iverson to kill him... at all.
> 
> As for >40 points. Its you guys who claimed for years and years that "Kobe has to score that many points for them to win" except he's scoring those points on 33 average win teams, and the wins against teams who are over 37 wins 1. shot 13% from 3 and 2. were missing their best player when he was integral to their team.


you still fail at showing what it is your analysis is showing about quality. it says nothing. it's numbers slapped together. did kobe play well in those games? poorly? help his team? hurt them? and why are you now focusing on individual games? how is this serious analysis? it's laughable. damning? it says nothing.


----------



## Game3525

Plastic Man said:


> What? Kobe is the consummate professional. He came out firing from day one of that season despite his rant and turmoil. It's not Vince Carter we're talking about here. If you're trying to suggest he wasn't trying to win post Shaq and in the first 3 months of the 2007/08 season I suggest you stop posting all together. Opinions are fine and dandy. Making up stuff isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. You do realize that it was a year in which we changed coaches monthly and Kobe himself suffered severe injuries coming back before he was 100% just to play? It was a horrible year by all means, but putting that on Kobe is almost a big a fallacy as putting the 15 win Heat team exclusively on Wade.
> 
> 
> 
> Per 36 minutes stats are worthless if the player only plays for 20 some minutes. He was great. For one year. Contract year, coincidentally. And then he couldn't hit the broad side of the barn anymore, becamce incompetent at throwing inbound passes and couldn't guard a chair anymore. He was more than solid in this year's Playoffs... before that, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter what you accept to tell you the truth. Especially considering both of the mentioned players are with the Lakers since draft day so I don't really know where they played great (unless you're talking overseas - Sasha; or UCLA - Jordan, but I highly doubt that). *Sasha sucked immenselly for every year expect last year (yeah, contract year again).*
> 
> Anyway, bad analysis.
> 
> I really do appreciate the non-hate response though. Hmm... which players do you think totally sucked and dragged Kobe down, and why do you think that? I'm curious, and since you're not just being a jerk, I promise I'll be fair.  cheers!


[/QUOTE]


Oh, but he is a championship role player!

04-05 LAL 35 3 11.5 0.282 0.270 0.947 0.4 1.4 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.43 1.20 2.9 
05-06 LAL 82 4 17.7 0.346 0.343 0.885 0.4 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.61 1.80 3.9 
06-07 LAL 73 4 12.8 0.392 0.373 0.878 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.41 1.40 4.3 
07-08 LAL 72 0 17.8 0.454 0.437 0.835 0.3 1.9 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.72 1.50 8.8 
08-09 LAL 80 0 16.2 0.387 0.363 0.921 0.2 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.44 1.90 5.8


----------



## indiefan23

Venom110 said:


> IMO, a missed shot doesn't necessarily indicate a low percentage attempt. Kobe is probably the best jump shooter included in the comparisons. Because of his ultimate confidence in his jumper, he does become jump-shot happy at times, which could explain his lower shooting percentage. This is especially evident when the team is trailing and he tries to shoot them back into the game.


Hmm... what about like, 20 missed shots, in one game? I think that affects your team negatively. I don't think he touches MJ's or even Wade's mid range game. He makes more 3's, but its kind of cuz he takes me. I'll totally give you though that when he gets his shot going he just becomes ridiculous and is totally impossible to guard though. I really enjoied watching how much better his game improved in the finals this year. I disagree with Simmons a bit, while he's the same guy I think he's starting to accept and acknowledge there is a better way for him to win.



> I think Miami was ousted in the First Round by the 4-seed in the Eastern Conference. I also think Lebron's highly touted 66-win team was ousted in the ECF's by the 3rd Seed. Kobe's team just won the Championship, 1 year after losing in the NBA Finals... It really seems like some double standards are at work here, But it is definitely nice to have you here FCP!


Hey, thanks, and good to be here. I grant you that Wade's team blew. His best two players were rookies and they gave rotation minutes to guys like Shaun Livingston's comeback attempt. Bron should have been in the finals. Almost no one can beat a team that shoots 48% from 3. His guys crapped the bed too. I think Bron made up for it though with his ridonkulous performance. Even though the magic hit 48%, they were still like what, 3 made open jumpers away from the finals? Something like that.

And for the record, I think Kobe deserved his title this year. More then any of the others. I don't have any probs with the guy winning when he's playing the right way or giving him credit for it either. He still shows lots of flashes of his old/true self but hey, the guy made an effort right? I expected less, to be honest. Its pretty amazing: guys making leaps at 30 is 'rare'.

Anyway, thanks for not hating on me like so many other people on here with an agenda. Its like they need Kobe to be amazing for life to continue or something. ;0 Fans!?!?


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... what about like, 20 missed shots, in one game? I think that affects your team negatively. I don't think he touches MJ's or even Wade's mid range game. He makes more 3's, but its kind of cuz he takes me. I'll totally give you though that when he gets his shot going he just becomes ridiculous and is totally impossible to guard though. I really enjoied watching how much better his game improved in the finals this year. I disagree with Simmons a bit, while he's the same guy I think he's starting to accept and acknowledge there is a better way for him to win.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, thanks, and good to be here. I grant you that Wade's team blew. His best two players were rookies and they gave rotation minutes to guys like Shaun Livingston's comeback attempt. Bron should have been in the finals. Almost no one can beat a team that shoots 48% from 3. His guys crapped the bed too. I think Bron made up for it though with his ridonkulous performance. Even though the magic hit 48%, they were still like what, 3 made open jumpers away from the finals? Something like that.
> 
> And for the record, I think Kobe deserved his title this year. More then any of the others. I don't have any probs with the guy winning when he's playing the right way or giving him credit for it either. He still shows lots of flashes of his old/true self but hey, the guy made an effort right? I expected less, to be honest. Its pretty amazing: guys making leaps at 30 is 'rare'.
> 
> *Anyway, thanks for not hating on me like so many other people on here with an agenda. Its like they need Kobe to be amazing for life to continue or something.* ;0 Fans!?!?


Everyone here has basically pointed out the flaws in your "analysis". Kifo is right your "stat" doesn't say anything. Kobe hasn't really changed as a player that much, but as a person he has matured into a better leader.


----------



## indiefan23

Oh, but he is a championship role player!

04-05 LAL 35 3 11.5 0.282 0.270 0.947 0.4 1.4 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.43 1.20 2.9 
05-06 LAL 82 4 17.7 0.346 0.343 0.885 0.4 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.61 1.80 3.9 
06-07 LAL 73 4 12.8 0.392 0.373 0.878 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.41 1.40 4.3 
07-08 LAL 72 0 17.8 0.454 0.437 0.835 0.3 1.9 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.72 1.50 8.8 
08-09 LAL 80 0 16.2 0.387 0.363 0.921 0.2 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.44 1.90 5.8[/QUOTE]

Umm... he's a role player. He didn't suck. Rookie role players aren't supposed to like, dominate. /36 mins he's been fine.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Oh, but he is a championship role player!
> 
> 04-05 LAL 35 3 11.5 0.282 0.270 0.947 0.4 1.4 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.43 1.20 2.9
> 05-06 LAL 82 4 17.7 0.346 0.343 0.885 0.4 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.61 1.80 3.9
> 06-07 LAL 73 4 12.8 0.392 0.373 0.878 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.41 1.40 4.3
> 07-08 LAL 72 0 17.8 0.454 0.437 0.835 0.3 1.9 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.72 1.50 8.8
> 08-09 LAL 80 0 16.2 0.387 0.363 0.921 0.2 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.44 1.90 5.8


Umm... he's a role player. He didn't suck. Rookie role players aren't supposed to like, dominate. /36 mins he's been fine.[/QUOTE]

36 min dosn't mean anything if you are only playing 17 a game on average. He has been awfully four out of his five years in the league, his best year was during a contract year, funny isn't it. 

P.S he still sucked during 36 min.


NBA 342 11 5359 4.2 10.6 .392 2.3 6.0 .377 1.7 1.9 .882 0.8 3.4 4.1 2.9 1.4 0.1 1.2 3.7 12.3


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> you still fail at showing what it is your analysis is showing about quality. it says nothing. it's numbers slapped together. did kobe play well in those games? poorly? help his team? hurt them? and why are you now focusing on individual games? how is this serious analysis? it's laughable. damning? it says nothing.


Hmm... I think not being able to facilitate the offense and your scoring at the same time is low quality, and Kobe sucks *** at it. You can say its just numbers slapped together but can't show it, so I'll accept your concession unless you have something besides insults to add.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... I think not being able to facilitate the offense and your scoring at the same time is low quality, and Kobe sucks *** at it. You can say its just numbers slapped together but can't show it, so I'll accept your concession unless you have something besides insults to add.


Lmao, Kobe sucks at facilitating? He was the main faciliator on the championshiop teams! Also Phil Jackson was the one who told Kobe prior to 2005-06 season that he is going to have to carry the load offensivly.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Umm... he's a role player. He didn't suck. Rookie role players aren't supposed to like, dominate. /36 mins he's been fine.


36 min dosn't mean anything if you are only playing 17 a game on average. He has been awfully four out of his five years in the league, his best year was during a contract year, funny isn't it.[/QUOTE]

It tells quite a bit. It means that production will typically increase to those levels if given more minutes and therefore is an indicator of quality. Beyond that, very qualified research has conclusively shown that given more minutes player's /36 numbers actually increase as you can play better once you get warm and into a rhythm. Also, Sasha is a great defender.

And he is a championship level role player by virtue of being a role player on two finals and one championship team. Awful? The guy was a rookie. You're not seriously going to hold being a rookie against teh guy when he's playing behind Kobe AND Lamar Odom, are you?


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> 36 min dosn't mean anything if you are only playing 17 a game on average. He has been awfully four out of his five years in the league, his best year was during a contract year, funny isn't it.


It tells quite a bit. It means that production will typically increase to those levels if given more minutes and therefore is an indicator of quality. Beyond that, very qualified research has conclusively shown that given more minutes player's /36 numbers actually increase as you can play better once you get warm and into a rhythm. Also, Sasha is a great defender.

And he is a championship level role player by virtue of being a role player on two finals and one championship team. Awful? The guy was a rookie. You're not seriously going to hold being a rookie against teh guy when he's playing behind Kobe AND Lamar Odom, are you?[/QUOTE]

Lmao, Sasha wasn't a rookie last year, he was a four year pro! Also Sasha still sucked during 36 min, yeah he averaged 12 ppg on 39% shooting. He was 0-6 in this years finals how is he a championship leve role player?


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Lmao, Kobe sucks at facilitating? He was the main faciliator on the championshiop teams! Also Phil Jackson was the one who told Kobe prior to 2005-06 season that he is going to have to carry the load offensivly.


At facilitating while scoring. And thats just not true. The offense ran through Shaq and Kobe played off of him. Its called the triple '*post*' offense for a reason.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> *At facilitating while scoring.* And thats just not true. The offense ran through Shaq and Kobe played off of him. Its called the triple '*post*' offense for a reason.


The guy has averaged around five dimes a game in a ball movement offense, while still scoring 25-26 PPG a game. the offense ran throught Shaq, but Kobe was the playmaker/faciliator on those teams. You do know Center is the most easist posistion in the Triangle offense?


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Lmao, Sasha wasn't a rookie last year, he was a four year pro! Also Sasha still sucked during 36 min, yeah he averaged 12 ppg on 39% shooting. He was 0-6 in this years finals how is he a championship leve role player?


His rookie/soph years are the only one's you can claim he sucked. How does 18/4.5/3 and 44% from 3, while being a very above average defender suck in any possible way for a role player getting 17 minutes??? He was what, the 9'th or 10'th best guy on his team???? Christ. LA fans are just so spoiled. Sasha would starting Miami or Orlando and get way more minutes on the Cavs.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> His rookie/soph years are the only one's you can claim he sucked. *How does 18/4.5/3 and 44% from 3*, while being a very above average defender suck in any possible way for a role player getting 17 minutes??? He was what, the 9'th or 10'th best guy on his team???? Christ. LA fans are just so spoiled. Sasha would starting Miami or Orlando and get way more minutes on the Cavs.


He played well one year out of five in a contract year that should tell you something. This is his career 36 min average 12.3 PPG on 39% shooting and 37% from three, he is not by a stretch a championship level role player.


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> What? Kobe is the consummate professional. He came out firing from day one of that season despite his rant and turmoil. It's not Vince Carter we're talking about here. If you're trying to suggest he wasn't trying to win post Shaq and in the first 3 months of the 2007/08 season I suggest you stop posting all together. Opinions are fine and dandy. Making up stuff isn't.


Post Shaq Kobe was padding his stats. He gave up, I repeat, gave up on the 2005 season when Odom got hurt and went 2-18 with Caron Butler on his team and continued by padding his stats the next season. I'm not making a thing up.





> Yes, it is. You do realize that it was a year in which we changed coaches monthly and Kobe himself suffered severe injuries coming back before he was 100% just to play? It was a horrible year by all means, but putting that on Kobe is almost a big a fallacy as putting the 15 win Heat team exclusively on Wade.


I don't care. They won 33 games and finished 2-18. Theres just no excuse. The 15 win team didn't have wade for most of the season and he was seriously hampered by the injury. Not even the same.



> Per 36 minutes stats are worthless if the player only plays for 20 some minutes. He was great. For one year. Contract year, coincidentally. And then he couldn't hit the broad side of the barn anymore, becamce incompetent at throwing inbound passes and couldn't guard a chair anymore. He was more than solid in this year's Playoffs... before that, not so much.


BS. Sasha played great the year before too. Man, you really throw your own players under the bus. Sasha is part of the kobe pattern of players who get to LA. Get there, produce, get sick of the BS and/or lose confidence, give up. Kobe has 'never' carried a team beyond what it should have done anyway. He's never made a team overachieve, but has led them to underachievement.



> It doesn't really matter what you accept to tell you the truth. Especially considering both of the mentioned players are with the Lakers since draft day so I don't really know where they played great (unless you're talking overseas - Sasha; or UCLA - Jordan, but I highly doubt that). Sasha sucked immenselly for every year expect last year (yeah, contract year again).
> 
> Anyway, bad analysis.


Farmar was playing great in LA and it stopped. This year they were saying he woudl take over the point and it would be a big step for LA. Sasha is good and plays great defense. Maybe is Kobe wasn't scowling at him? Maybe if you guys, the fans, didn't give role players all the blame and all the glory to Kobe they'd still compete? I've never seen fans of a team hate on their own players so much. Ever.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Post Shaq Kobe was padding his stats. He gave up, I repeat, gave up on the 2005 season when Odom got hurt and went 2-18 with Caron Butler on his team and continued by padding his stats the next season. I'm not making a thing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care. They won 33 games and finished 2-18. Theres just no excuse. The 15 win team didn't have wade for most of the season and he was seriously hampered by the injury. Not even the same.
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Sasha played great the year before too. Man, you really throw your own players under the bus. Sasha is part of the kobe pattern of players who get to LA. Get there, produce, get sick of the BS and/or lose confidence, give up. Kobe has 'never' carried a team beyond what it should have done anyway. He's never made a team overachieve, but has led them to underachievement.
> 
> 
> 
> Farmar was playing great in LA and it stopped. This year they were saying he woudl take over the point and it would be a big step for LA. Sasha is good and plays great defense. Maybe is Kobe wasn't scowling at him? Maybe if you guys, the fans, didn't give role players all the blame and all the glory to Kobe they'd still compete? I've never seen fans of a team hate on their own players so much. Ever.



Kobe never gave up,the team fought injuries and change coaches in the middle of the season, they were a playoff team prior to Kobe going down in Jan. This is like saying Wade gave up on the 15-67 team, it is stupid to say. Sasha has been terrible ever year but 07-08, the stats don't lie. Farmer was never a starter, so how can you blame Kobe when Phil went with the guy who knew this offense and has four championship rings as the starting PG, Derek Fisher. Kobe is not prefect, but you are seriously not objective at all and try to blame ever role players shortcomings on Kobe Bryant and it is sad and inaccurate.


----------



## King Joseus

:lol: at this thread.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... I think not being able to facilitate the offense and your scoring at the same time is low quality, and Kobe sucks *** at it. You can say its just numbers slapped together but can't show it, so I'll accept your concession unless you have something besides insults to add.


simple questions - your stat addresses 96 games of kobe's career. did he play well in those games? how does your stat address that question?


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

indiefan23 said:


> His rookie/soph years are the only one's you can claim he sucked. How does 18/4.5/3 and 44% from 3, while being a very above average defender suck in any possible way for a role player getting 17 minutes??? He was what, the 9'th or 10'th best guy on his team???? Christ. LA fans are just so spoiled. Sasha would starting Miami or Orlando and get way more minutes on the Cavs.


Methinks you have posted here before. What was your old name?


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Nevermind, you're the author of the damn article. :laugh:


----------



## kflo

reminds me of joek.


----------



## DaRizzle

I stopped reading after the author gave Kobe crap for having his assists drop in 2006 while scoring more....Look who he was passing to!


----------



## Game3525

DaRizzle said:


> I stopped reading after the author gave Kobe crap for having his assists drop in 2006 while scoring more....Look who he was passing to!


Didn't you know? Smush, Walton, Sasha, Kwame are all championship level role players.


----------



## Jesukki

EDIT-this was a worthless post


----------



## Prolific Scorer




----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Prolific Scorer said:


>


Not once in this thread did you ever post anything indicating that you even knew what the article was saying. You couldn't even answer kflo's question. Dodging easy requests negates any right to talk ****.


----------



## DaRizzle

Prolific Scorer said:


>


you're kidding right? :tumbleweed:


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Sorry, my old keyboard was acting up so I had to get another one last night from Best Buy. I wasn't going to take 50 minutes to answer so I had to keep my posts 3 words or less. 


But thank you for your concern. I say good day!


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Prolific Scorer said:


> Sorry, my old keyboard was acting up so I had to get another one last night from Best Buy. I wasn't going to take 50 minutes to answer so I had to keep my posts 3 words or less.
> 
> 
> But thank you for your concern. I say good day!


You have no clue what the article said, yet you claim it as absolute truth. That can only point to one thing...


----------



## Game3525

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You have no clue what the article said, yet you claim it as absolute truth. That can only point to one thing...


I wouldn't take him seriously, he said in another thread that Penny Hardaway was more impressive at age 24 then Lebron James, that tells me enough right there.


----------



## Cap

Pssst, I knew this dude would e-wimp out of a debate. I bet this kid couldn't explain in two sentences what his made-up stat actually _shows_, and _why_.


----------



## Nightmute

Even if your data means what you say it means, so what? It hasn't prevented Kobe from individual success as a player and it certainly hasn't prevented him from winning championships. So, in the end you come out looking like you have it in for Kobe; whether that was your intention or not.


----------



## Nightmute

Prolific Scorer said:


> Sorry, my old keyboard was acting up so I had to get another one last night from Best Buy. I wasn't going to take 50 minutes to answer so I had to keep my posts 3 words or less.
> 
> 
> But thank you for your concern. I say good day!


Then how 'bout you type up that response now?


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Obviously you guys can't comprehend what the article is saying because you still haven't came up with any logical rebuttle to what the article is actually saying. Instead you take it as an insult to Kobe when the person who wrote it was just breaking down the numbers. I have yet to see someone put the numbers in it's proper context and actually refute anything it's saying. Instead all i'm hearing is offtopic jibberish about Kobe's done this and Kobe's done that.


I'm waiting..


----------



## Jamel Irief

Game3525 said:


> I wouldn't take him seriously, he said in another thread that Penny Hardaway was more impressive at age 24 then Lebron James, that tells me enough right there.


Don't worry about prolific. He is on record as saying Bynum will only be a bench role player, and he "puts that one everything!"

Also said orlando was better than the Lakers AFTER the Lakers were already up 3-1.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Jamel Irief said:


> Don't worry about prolific. He is on record as saying Bynum will only be a bench role player, and he "puts that one everything!"
> 
> Also said orlando was better than the Lakers AFTER the Lakers were already up 3-1.


Yeah because we know that after two knee surgeries and a horrible season that Andrew Bynum has proved he's anything more than a role player.


_And I am not being sarcastic._


----------



## Game3525

Prolific Scorer said:


> Obviously you guys can't comprehend what the article is saying because you still haven't came up with any logical rebuttle to what the article is actually saying. Instead you take it as an insult to Kobe when the person who wrote it was just breaking down the numbers. I have yet to see someone put the numbers in it's proper context and actually refute anything it's saying. Instead all i'm hearing is offtopic jibberish about Kobe's done this and Kobe's done that.
> 
> 
> I'm waiting..


You don't even know what the article means, yet you posted it. And please there have plenty of posters who already debunked this "stat". GTA Addict did the best job of explaining why it doesn't work, CAP also did a good job.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Game3525 said:


> I wouldn't take him seriously, he said in another thread that Penny Hardaway was more impressive at age 24 then Lebron James, that tells me enough right there.


Yeah, he's bowed himself out of this one too. :laugh:

Why post an article of which you have no idea what it is actually saying other than to discredit a player? There is no other reason.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Basic premise to use assists to evaluate anything is flawed. I'm against stats in general, but it's the most worthless stat that is subjectively attributed. Players get assists more frequently today than eras where scoring was higher due to the lax definition of assists. On top of that if you draw attention and spot an open shooter they still have to make a shot. Or if that shooter forces a rotation and finds a guy for a lay-up the creator of the collapse receives no statistical credit.

I didn't need to read this to find out Kobe has shot too much at times. But if you put him behind guys like Iverson and Wilkins in terms of field goal attempt IQ than I can say your just trying to manipulate numbers instead of watching basketball.

I mean god damn it, Kwame Brown could not catch a basketball and was so nervous when he did have it in his hands he was liable to miss the rim on lay-ups. He's a athletic beast and literally is the best big man pick-and-roll defender I have ever seen, but no one was going to make that player I hated so much a great scorer.


----------



## Cap

Prolific Scorer said:


> Obviously you guys can't comprehend what the article is saying because you still haven't came up with any logical rebuttle to what the article is actually saying. Instead you take it as an insult to Kobe when the person who wrote it was just breaking down the numbers. I have yet to see someone put the numbers in it's proper context and actually refute anything it's saying. Instead all i'm hearing is offtopic jibberish about Kobe's done this and Kobe's done that.
> 
> 
> I'm waiting..


The stat and the article have already been torn apart and debunked numerous times in this thread. Free feel to address those posts.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

I guess he ignored the fact that it was actually a thread based on personal opinion and not solely on statistics. Besides that I broke it down as to why I prefer Hardaway over some of those other guys at that age in the same thread.


I have game on ignore anyways. He's in the same boat as VanillaPrice and Ras. They bash people's opinions and ask these asinine questions and i've yet to see either of these guys give any kind of logical reasoning behind anything they post.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Prolific Scorer said:


> Yeah because we know that after two knee surgeries and a horrible season that Andrew Bynum has proved he's anything more than a role player.
> 
> 
> _And I am not being sarcastic._


Read your post again. If you aren't being sarcastic are you saying Bynum has proved he's more than a role player? I don't get it.

And you meant to say horrible POST season. Regular season he would of been the second best player on Orlando. Look at his January numbers. 

So do you want to put on everything Bynum will always be a role player?


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Cap said:


> The stat and the article have already been torn apart and debunked numerous times in this thread. Free feel to address those posts.


You might have think you did, but no one has. All i've seen is people still hung up on the whole supporting cast issue and the repeated "Kobe has won championships, so it doesn't matter"


and BH, you have added nothing.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Somebody tried to debunk the article, but indie23 has owned this thread up and down 5 times over.

He's debunked everyone's supposed debunking, and the only people still posting in this thread are Laker fans, go figure.


----------



## Game3525

Prolific Scorer said:


> I guess he ignored the fact that it was actually a thread based on personal opinion and not solely on statistics. Besides that I broke it down as to why I prefer Hardaway over some of those other guys at that age in the same thread.
> 
> 
> I have game on ignore anyways. He's in the same boat as VanillaPrice and Ras. They bash people's opinions and ask these asinine questions and i've yet to see either of these guys give any kind of logical reasoning behind anything they post.


Is it because I owned you on that Reggie Miller/Allen Iverson debate? I don't think I have ever said anything as asinine as you.


----------



## Game3525

Prolific Scorer said:


> You might have think you did, but no one has. All i've seen is people still hung up on the whole supporting cast issue and the repeated "Kobe has won championships, so it doesn't matter"
> 
> 
> and BH, you have added nothing.


Lmao, the OP's "stat" has been debunked by plenty of poster. You sound more like a bitter Magic fan then someone with logic. Oh, but then again you would take Penny over Lebron.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Jamel Irief said:


> Read your post again. If you aren't being sarcastic are you saying Bynum has proved he's more than a role player? I don't get it.
> 
> And you meant to say horrible POST season. Regular season he would of been the second best player on Orlando. Look at his January numbers.
> 
> So do you want to put on everything Bynum will always be a role player?


So in the passed 3 years, Andrew Bynum has put up good numbers a total of 2 months. Great.


----------



## Nightmute

Prolific Scorer said:


> Yeah because we know that after two knee surgeries and a horrible season that Andrew Bynum has proved he's anything more than a role player.
> 
> 
> _And I am not being sarcastic._


I know, I mean he hasn't shown anything before those injuries to suggest otherwise.

As for the article, what's there to address. It says Kobe sucks at balancing scoring and passing, I get it. All I'm saying, and from what I gather everyone else as well, is that such data doesn't have much point to it. It doesn't prove that Kobe is somehow worse then Wade, LeBron, AI, Pierce or any other wing player, and it doesn't disprove that his inability to pass whilst scoring prevents him from winning games and championships. You said it puts things in perspective and never elaborated on it, why is it everyone else's job to discover what perspective you meant?


----------



## Game3525

Proflic needs to man up and actually explain what the article means then, hell he is the one who posted it.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Prolific Scorer said:


> Somebody tried to debunk the article, but indie23 has owned this thread up and down 5 times over.


Is this like when you said the Lakers haven't proven they were better than Orlando when they were up 3-1?


----------



## Jamel Irief

Prolific Scorer said:


> So in the passed 3 years, Andrew Bynum has put up good numbers a total of 2 months. Great.


Nope his entire 4th season (outside of the playoffs), his entire third season and the first half of his second season.... and he's 21.

So answer my question and don't dodge it, do you still think Bynum won't be anything more than a role player?


----------



## Air Jordan 23

kflo said:


> terrible article.



Shouldn't that be "turrible"?


----------



## Jamel Irief

Game3525 said:


> Proflic needs to man up and actually explain what the article means then, hell he is the one who posted it.


It's pretty obvious what he did here. He saw a link to the article, glanced over it and noticed it was anti-Kobe and the writer made some formulas and spent a lot of time on it. He posted it here hoping it would be fool proof and the merits of the article would stand on it's own, but instead when people challenged it it became obvious Prolific Scorer didn't even read it. "I don't have to say anything, indiefan is dominating you suckaaaaaaas!!!! Go worship in your Kobe temples you fanboys!!!"

What a joke. At least have an opinion other than "that other guy is right."


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Jamel Irief said:


> It's pretty obvious what he did here. He saw a link to the article, glanced over it and noticed it was anti-Kobe and the writer made some formulas and spent a lot of time on it. He posted it here hoping it would be fool proof and the merits of the article would stand on it's own, but instead when people challenged it it became obvious Prolific Scorer didn't even read it. "I don't have to say anything, indiefan is dominating you suckaaaaaaas!!!! Go worship in your Kobe temples you fanboys!!!"
> 
> What a joke. At least have an opinion other than "that other guy is right."


That's what I was getting at. He's still dodging and it's painfully obvious. Refusing to concede is not going to make it less obvious. :laugh:


----------



## Game3525

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> That's what I was getting at. He's still dodging and it's painfully obvious. Refusing to concede is not going to make it less obvious. :laugh:


Proflic is just butt hurt because the Magic lossed, a bad case of sourgrapes. If he actually read it, he would not have posted it due to the fact indie said Kobe killed Smush Parker's career, but once again he would take Penny over Lebron at age 24.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> That's what I was getting at. He's still dodging and it's painfully obvious. Refusing to concede is not going to make it less obvious. :laugh:


Leave him alone. Last night his monitor caught on fire and this morning he broke 3 typing fingers. Why would he have to time to respond to questions?


----------



## Basel

Let's not get into any personal attacks or anything of the sort - stay on topic, please.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Prolific Scorer said:


> He's debunked everyone's supposed debunking, and the only people still posting in this thread are Laker fans, go figure.


That's because nobody but Lakers fans have enough of an emotional investment to take this garbage seriously. If you're set on hating Kobe, I can give you way better ammo than this stupid stat. 

And no, dude hasn't debunked anything. Everybody has torn apart his actual article and analysis. He, like you, has said anybody disagreeing is a Kobe stan. Original.

You'd never see Hollinger in here calling people stans. Ever. Dude is so numbers based it's not even funny, and he can defend his numbers down to the last digit. Even if you don't agree with what his numbers suggest, you have to atleast respect the thoroughness of his craft.


----------



## Tragedy

Game3525 said:


> Proflic needs to man up and actually explain what the article means then, hell he is the one who posted it.


The article means this:

I'm a kobe hater/magic fan, and I cant believe Kobe won/my team lost, so in order to make myself feel better I will write/look for articles which "prove" Kobe and the Lakers winning the title is a big mistake, a fluke to help me cope and make it to next june where he can possibly lose and I can go back to normal and pretend he never won ever. Until then I'll write/read about the dumbest point of view.


----------



## lakeshows

Tragedy said:


> The article means this:
> 
> I'm a kobe hater/magic fan, and I cant believe Kobe won/my team lost, so in order to make myself feel better I will write/look for articles which "prove" Kobe and the Lakers winning the title is a big mistake, a fluke to help me cope and make it to next june where he can possibly lose and I can go back to normal and pretend he never won ever. Until then I'll write/read about the dumbest point of view.


Nobody said it's a fluke that the Lakers won. In fact eveyone agreed that the Lakers were the better team and should have and did win. Seriously where do Laker fans get this junk from?

I seriously can't believe the lengths some Kobe fans go to to protect their idol. 


Here you go buddies. Debate on this 'til it hurts: It's not an insult to say that he isn't as good as MJ. It's the truth. It's not an insult to say he was a sidekick on the 3 -peat Lakers. It's the truth.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> 36 min dosn't mean anything if you are only playing 17 a game on average. He has been awfully four out of his five years in the league, his best year was during a contract year, funny isn't it.
> 
> It tells quite a bit. It means that production will typically increase to those levels if given more minutes and therefore is an indicator of quality. Beyond that, very qualified research has conclusively shown that given more minutes player's /36 numbers actually increase as you can play better once you get warm and into a rhythm. *also, Sasha is a great defender*.
> 
> And he is a championship level role player by virtue of being a role player on two finals and one championship team. Awful? The guy was a rookie. You're not seriously going to hold being a rookie against teh guy when he's playing behind Kobe AND Lamar Odom, are you?


Just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it true. Sasha might be a pesky defender, but he's far from a great one.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> Post Shaq Kobe was padding his stats. He gave up, I repeat, gave up on the 2005 season when Odom got hurt and went 2-18 with Caron Butler on his team and continued by padding his stats the next season. I'm not making a thing up.


Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. For one, the Lakers were 32-32 when Odom injured himself in the game against Indiana. So they actually went 3-13 without him. And I'm sure a pre All-Star Caron Butler and a collection of punching bags (namely Chris Mihm, Chucky Atkins, Jumaine Jones, Brian Grant, Luke Walton, Tierre Brown, Brian Cook) were all the help Kobe needed to win that year. You know, since they were championship level role players. :rotf:



> I don't care. They won 33 games and finished 2-18. Theres just no excuse. The 15 win team didn't have wade for most of the season and he was seriously hampered by the injury. Not even the same.


Great that you don't care. We don't care that you don't care either. Who's making excuses? There's a perfectly valid explanation for the 2004/05 fiasco and it's staring you in the face. Revisionist history and amking stuff up as you go along doesn't help though. Plus you lose credibilty with every post, since you were obviously only looking at stats and makin your own conclusions based on that. When did you start following the NBA? Last season? For the record, Bryant suffered a severely sprained ankle. But only Wade's injuries seriously hamper him, Kobe should play briliantlly on one leg. And I'm sure changing coaches in the middle of the season couldn't have anything to do with a subpar record. No, Kobe, Kobe, Kobe. The selfish, balhogging, stat-padding, underachieving, scowling, cheating *******.



> BS. Sasha played great the year before too. Man, you really throw your own players under the bus. *Sasha is part of the kobe pattern of players who get to LA. Get there, produce, get sick of the BS and/or lose confidence, give up. *


Yeah, I'm sure the 4.3 points per game on 39% shooting in 12 minutes of play are enough to be called great (I'm sure the numbers are great per 36 minutes, though). I guess you could call James' supporting cast HOF material by that standard. I'm not throwing a single player under the bus. I loved Sasha last year, I was ecstatic when he signed. And now he sucks donkey balls. It's really hard to sugarcoat it, considering we were all jumping with joy if he managed to hit more than half of his shots and not foul 60 feet away from the basket. I'm sure the injury, the fact that he doesn't play a lot with Kobe and the limited minutes were all important factors, but Sasha Vujacic is not a championship level role player and ANYONE who believes that he is is an idiot. Yep, I said it, an idiot.

As for the bolded part, name 5 of those players, please. Thank you.



> Kobe has 'never' carried a team beyond what it should have done anyway. He's never made a team overachieve, but has led them to underachievement.


Really? He played in 6 Finals, won 4, lead a D-league team featuring Lamar Odom to a 3-1 lead against the favoured Suns, got to the Finals last season although they were touted as a 1st round exit at best. Got to the Finals this year again and convincingly won the championship, despite constantly being doubted by the fans, the media and the experts. I don't know what drug you're on but that's a hell of a lot more than a bunch of the players you mentioned (and who supposedly always won, made their teams better, yada yada yada) did. And it certainly can't be described as an underachievement.



> Farmar was playing great in LA and it stopped. This year they were saying he woudl take over the point and it would be a big step for LA.


No, Farmar wasn't playing great. He was solid for a stretch, but when Crit was traded he declined rapidly. He was attrocious in last year's playoffs and was below average for the majority of this season. And nobody was saying he would take over the point. Unless you're talking about the voices in your head that is.



> Sasha is good and plays great defense.


NO HE ISN'T AND NO HE DOESN'T, FOR ****'S SAKE! No matter how many times you repeat it, it still won't make it true. Battier, Artest, Wade, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett, Duncan, those are great defenders. Sasha is a below average defender and athlete who tries to make up for his shortcomings with a lot of effort... still doesn't help that he's like a headless chicken out there for the majority of the time.



> Maybe is Kobe wasn't scowling at him?


Oh, poor Sasha. He gets payed 5 million a year to do jack **** and is offended by Kobe scowling at him. Hey, look, I just played the world's smallest violin for Sasha. :boohoo:



> Maybe if you guys, the fans, didn't give role players all the blame and all the glory to Kobe they'd still compete?


I'm sure all the players spend their time online, read Laker related forums and decide not to compete when they see how differently we treat them and Kobe. And for the record, I hope they don't compete next year too, because if I recall correctly we've just won a championship. Who'd figure, eh? With all the underachievement, non-competing, scowling and whatnot.

In conclusion - please, stop posting, it's the most humane thing you can do at this point.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Kobe never gave up,the team fought injuries and change coaches in the middle of the season, they were a playoff team prior to Kobe going down in Jan. This is like saying Wade gave up on the 15-67 team, it is stupid to say. Sasha has been terrible ever year but 07-08, the stats don't lie. Farmer was never a starter, so how can you blame Kobe when Phil went with the guy who knew this offense and has four championship rings as the starting PG, Derek Fisher. Kobe is not prefect, but you are seriously not objective at all and try to blame ever role players shortcomings on Kobe Bryant and it is sad and inaccurate.


Heh, man, I saw the games. Kobe stopped driving to the hole and started jacking distance shots. Kobe's injuries were nothing like a torn labrum... didn't he hurt have an ankle sprain or something? And wasn't it in January? Hmm... yea, the team even went 6-8 when Kobe was out. You can argue something about playing weak teams if you want, which I'm sure is an excuse you'll bring up, but in the stretch they beat GSW twice, charlotte, portland and new jersey, Minny and lost a game by 1 point to houston... without Kobe.

When Odom got hurt, they went 2-18 posting losses to GSW, portland, minny and were blown out by houston. Theres no excuse for it. Farmar showed legitimate progress and regressed to a worse year then his rookie season. Sasha has never been 'terrible'. LA got even more good players which cut into his minutes but he's always been very decent for a role player.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Is it because I owned you on that Reggie Miller/Allen Iverson debate? I don't think I have ever said anything as asinine as you.


Heh, what was that all about in a sentence? I'd like to chime in... huge reggie and iverson fan.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> He played well one year out of five in a contract year that should tell you something. This is his career 36 min average 12.3 PPG on 39% shooting and 37% from three, he is not by a stretch a championship level role player.


Playing well on a stacked team in the one year you get minutes because your team has a rash of injuries is an indicator of your quality despite limited minutes, not of your suckage. Ariza/Bynum were both hurt, so instead of Sasha being your 9'th best player, he was your 7'th, stepped up and still filled those roles well enough to make the finals. He would absolutely start over JJ Redick. If you make the finals on a team playing rotation minutes through the season and playoffs, you absolutely are a championship level role player.

Sasha is absolutely a very good above average defender. The very first thing Kobe says when asked if Sasha should come back is "yea, it would be great to have him for his shooting and defense." Its so hilarious... I didn't even slam Kobe's actual assist numbers and you guys were all about how its the triangle offense that affects his numbers... yet you're throwing a guy Sasha under the bus when its him accepts a lesser role on a stacked team to make your team stacked... and he gets insulted for it.

I mean, WTF, Ariza/Bynum are playing so now there's less shots etc for Vujacic who's just asked to play D and do little things. After a career year he responds instead of complaining that his stats are going in the toilet he helps you win a title and now he sucks just so Kobe can look better when he was jacking shots? Are you aware that his steals *doubled* from last season? Its RIDICULOUS the way you guys are trashing your own players, especially the one's who sacrifice the most personal glory to help your team win big. And its just to buff the guy who does get all the glory, Kobe, so he shines even brighter.

There used to be a time when Laker fans showed some class towards their role players. They showed LOVE to Kurt Rambis. He wasn't Magic or Worthy or Kareem but he was that guy who did what was needed of him to make the team better. If that meant playing less minutes so be it. Why don't you show your own guys some love? Its classy.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> I wouldn't take him seriously, he said in another thread that Penny Hardaway was more impressive at age 24 then Lebron James, that tells me enough right there.


I wouldn't agree with that, but Penny was FANTASTIC! People would be saying Lebron still has a ways to go before he can touch Penny had he not had his injuries happen. Amazing player till he got hurt.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> There used to be a time when Laker fans showed some class towards their role players. They showed LOVE to Kurt Rambis. He wasn't Magic or Worthy or Kareem but he was that guy who did what was needed of him to make the team better. If that meant playing less minutes so be it. Why don't you show your own guys some love? Its classy.


We show love all right. To the ones who deserve it. We showed love towards Fox, Shaw, Horry, Fisher. We show it towards other love-worthy role players. I never showed love towards Mark Madsen or Samaki Walker and unless Sasha gets back to at least being decent I don't intend on blindly supporting him. Nobody here expects him to be Kobe and his effort is probably the only thing that doesn't make him completely hated. Because he did very little contributing this year.

Btw, why are you still harping on a long forgotten season and some inbetween mediocre years not a week removed from the Lakers winning the title? Do you realize that the franchise completed a total rebuild in 3 years? Some teams never recover after winning titles and falling apart (Bulls), some need 20 years to get back (Celtics)... the Lakers were back near the top in only 4 seasons. Largely thanks to you know who. (No, not Sasha or Luke Walton)


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> Pssst, I knew this dude would e-wimp out of a debate. I bet this kid couldn't explain in two sentences what his made-up stat actually _shows_, and _why_.


psst: All stats are 'made up'. Even PPG was 'made up'. I'm a computer scientist with over 10 years experience and have done statistical sports work in the past that was much more complex then this diddy. This stat is simplistic. Two sentences? I'm not sure how being able to explain something in two sentences or if you'll be able to understand it, but I can do it never the less...

It shows how a player's assist production changes in conjunction with their scoring production. It does this by employing quantile normalization of average assits to produce player assist trends with respect to 5 point scoring intervals.

I'm not a professional statistician, but I'm not stupid either nor is this very complicated. I'm guessing you'll e-wimp out before me.


----------



## Jakain

I haven't really took some time to break down the new stat you made; however the language you used in your article doesn't help to make it look legitimate since you basically put Kobe in a negative light whenever you could. The tone throughout is just Kobe-bashing and while it works for sportswriters who are already well known and have a portfolio in this; its not going to help an amateur writer trying to get respect.


----------



## kflo

kflo said:


> simple questions - your stat addresses 96 games of kobe's career. did he play well in those games? how does your stat address that question?


simple questions.


----------



## indiefan23

Nightmute said:


> Even if your data means what you say it means, so what? It hasn't prevented Kobe from individual success as a player and it certainly hasn't prevented him from winning championships. So, in the end you come out looking like you have it in for Kobe; whether that was your intention or not.


Hmm... I disagree totally. It prevented him from winning a title in 04. It prevented him from 50 win teams after. Feuding immaturely with Shaq prevented him from winning titles or even competing with them in those years. Kobe spent his prime in mediocrity because he had to be 'the man' and couldn't wait. Having poorly developed role players and jacking shots prevented him from winning last year. How many MVP's would Kobe have if he pushed his teams to 50-55 wins over those 3 years instead of 3 games under .500 instead of scoring 35 PPG? How many would Steve Nash not have?

Do I have it in for Kobe? Not really, I have it in for talented players who put themselves before their teams and over value themselves. I don't really have it in for Kobe any more then I had it in for Marbury, Zach Randolph, Iverson or even young Shaq before he realized scoring instead of committing to anchoring the defense was hurting his team. When Kobe made an effort to balance his personal goals with his team goals in the finals this year I gave him all kinds of credit and totally express that in the article too.

Kobe is ridiculously talented and is one of the very few players who has improved himself every year he's played the game but the guy has a tragic flaw. Its okay to have a flaw, most great players do. Nash is not a great on ball defender, Amare was lazy on D and both were owned by Robert Sarver who was laziest of all on D. Shaq spent most of his career mailing in D too. KG had McHale as a GM and Glen Taylor as an owner. Jordan spent half his career trying to do too much himself too. Wade/Yao are injury prone. Grant Hill was incredibly injury prone and cared too much coming back before he was ready time after time. Dwight Howard's offensive game is raw. Larry was not the best athlete ever. Barkley was undersized for his position. Karl Malone has the IQ of a used condom. Its perfectly okay to have a tragic flaw. If the Kobe fans accepted this they'd hear WAY less criticism of Kobe as most people are not actually bashing the player, Kobe Bryant, but the wild assertions of his fans that he's obviously the best of all time, top 3 all time, the best of the decade or the best in the league. This article is really critical of Kobe's over rating instead of the player himself. Its that simple.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kflo View Post
> simple questions - your stat addresses 96 games of kobe's career. did he play well in those games? how does your stat address that question?
> simple questions.


Two facts.

1. Kobe is considered great because he's a great scorer.

2. He's considered a great scorer because of those 96 highest scoring games.

One simple answer: He did not play nearly as well as the scoring average/points in those games indicates. Not even close to as well.

How do you respond to that?


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> The article means this:
> 
> I'm a kobe hater/magic fan, and I cant believe Kobe won/my team lost, so in order to make myself feel better I will write/look for articles which "prove" Kobe and the Lakers winning the title is a big mistake, a fluke to help me cope and make it to next june where he can possibly lose and I can go back to normal and pretend he never won ever. Until then I'll write/read about the dumbest point of view.


Why would a Kobe hater say he deserved his championship? Why would a magic fan say Orlando fluked into the finals by hitting 48% of their 3's and were 3 open shots away from being swept?

You say my point of view is dumb yet its obvious you have not even read it. I will call that dumb as the used condom I just compared Karl Malone's IQ to.


----------



## Jakain

So what would Kobe's statline have to look like for your stat to make him look like a positive player?


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's because nobody but Lakers fans have enough of an emotional investment to take this garbage seriously. If you're set on hating Kobe, I can give you way better ammo than this stupid stat.


Patchwork: its much more true that no one but Laker/Kobe fans have enough of an emotional investment to ignore facts when they are presented to them.

Heh, I'm not set on hating Kobe at all. Once Kobe changed his game in the finals I quite enjoyed watching him honestly and basically said this in the article along with that he deserved the title. Its like this guys: if you don't read the article and criticize me, I will cut you up on it. I spent oodles of time over the years and loads of time to write this. Comparatively to the time you won't even take to read for 10 minutes your level of hate is what, a million times mine. How many times do you think someone has said something damning about me that is 'directly' contradicted in the article I wrote alone in this thread alone? 10? 20? 30?



> And no, dude hasn't debunked anything. Everybody has torn apart his actual article and analysis. He, like you, has said anybody disagreeing is a Kobe stan. Original.
> 
> You'd never see Hollinger in here calling people stans. Ever. Dude is so numbers based it's not even funny, and he can defend his numbers down to the last digit. Even if you don't agree with what his numbers suggest, you have to atleast respect the thoroughness of his craft.


I have not said this at all. I've called other people, like yourself, who try to claim they debunked something without reading it Stans, and guess what, you are. Talking about something without knowing what it is is stupid. You seriously think John Hollinger respects the intellect of the scads of people who cut up his work because they don't understand or mis-represent it? I can guarantee you, and I'd bet my mother's life on it if she was hanging over a pit of crocodiles, that he's ridiculed stupidity in relation to his stats countless times. Would you bet me the same he has not? No, you would not.


----------



## indiefan23

Jakain said:


> So what would Kobe's statline have to look like for your stat to make him look like a positive player?


His stat line really does not affect it actually. His averages that is. What he would need is to have multiple games/stat lines with him getting closer to or above his average assists. If you look at Bron's 50 point games for instance they are peppered with games above his average dimes and it factors into the stat heavily at that interval.

Thanks for the non-hating question Jakain. Much appreciated.


----------



## indiefan23

Prolific Scorer said:


> Obviously you guys can't comprehend what the article is saying because you still haven't came up with any logical rebuttle to what the article is actually saying. Instead you take it as an insult to Kobe when the person who wrote it was just breaking down the numbers. I have yet to see someone put the numbers in it's proper context and actually refute anything it's saying. Instead all i'm hearing is offtopic jibberish about Kobe's done this and Kobe's done that.
> 
> 
> I'm waiting..


Yep, I've put this in a couple places and have yet to actually here someone try and talk about the stat. They say its bunk but no one can give a reason why. There was one guy at real gm who tried to say that my sample size was way too small by saying it was 45 games out of 1000's, except he's confusing my dataset, >40 point games with the 5 point sample quantiles from that data set.

The only other responses I've heard that really put fourth a valid argument is "so what if Kobe plays selfishly. It didn't stop him from winning a title" except I never state he's not great, I state he is great, and his personal exploits derailed his career which could have ended with 8 (or more) titles, many MVPs and a ceiling of true GOAT contention. Its been wasted.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Don't worry about prolific. He is on record as saying Bynum will only be a bench role player, and he "puts that one everything!"
> 
> Also said orlando was better than the Lakers AFTER the Lakers were already up 3-1.


I disagree with that, but the Cavs were better then Orlando after they went up 3-1, so its not really a crazy argument. The Lake show is still a much better team though.


----------



## Jamel Irief

lakeshows said:


> Nobody said it's a fluke that the Lakers won. In fact eveyone agreed that the Lakers were the better team and should have and did win. Seriously where do Laker fans get this junk from?


Prolific Scorer, the guy tragedy was replying to, was quoted as saying the lakers still haven't shown him anything to prove they are better in the middle of game 5. 

So you are wrong.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Basic premise to use assists to evaluate anything is flawed. I'm against stats in general, but it's the most worthless stat that is subjectively attributed. Players get assists more frequently today than eras where scoring was higher due to the lax definition of assists. On top of that if you draw attention and spot an open shooter they still have to make a shot. Or if that shooter forces a rotation and finds a guy for a lay-up the creator of the collapse receives no statistical credit.


Heh, yep, I agree, that's why I wrote, oh, 5000 extra words that were not about the stat for context. ;0



> I didn't need to read this to find out Kobe has shot too much at times. But if you put him behind guys like Iverson and Wilkins in terms of field goal attempt IQ than I can say your just trying to manipulate numbers instead of watching basketball.


And you obviously didn't read it either or you'd know that unlike you suggested above, the amoun of dimes you get a game have no bearing on this stat. Having a high IQ and actually using it are totally different things BTW.



> I mean god damn it, Kwame Brown could not catch a basketball and was so nervous when he did have it in his hands he was liable to miss the rim on lay-ups. He's a athletic beast and literally is the best big man pick-and-roll defender I have ever seen, but no one was going to make that player I hated so much a great scorer.


Hmm... see, this is the perception is it not?

1. Mabye Kwame was nervous because the best player on his team who most likely hated him was glaring at him every single time he made a mistake. Its a lot of pressure when someone he probably spent high school following like crazy gets a hate on for you.

2. Kwame <<< Shaq, Kwame's hands were questionable, but how can you really say he was THAT bad when he almost shot 60% and had less turnovers per 36 minutes then Shaq *EVER *had in his entire career? I remember Kwame killing Phoenix and finally showing his potential as well as him dropping passes. The fact is, Kwame's numbers in LA don't support ANY of the intense criticisms Kobe fans throw at him. The only reason Kwame is considered a horrible, horrible player is because he was drafted way over his potential at #1. Being a draft bust has no relevance on how good a player you actually are. If Kwame was drafted in the second round he'd be known as a solid pick. The reality is just that 60% shooting and 6-7 boards and 1.2 blocks in under 30 minutes are great numbers for a role player. Truth.


----------



## indiefan23

Prolific Scorer said:


> So in the passed 3 years, Andrew Bynum has put up good numbers a total of 2 months. Great.


Hmm... I disagree about Bynum. He looks injury prone but if he reaches his potential and stays healthy he competes with Dwight Howard. He's put up very similar numbers to Howard in the past. Not D12's numbers this year though, which are all time sick level numbers. Here, you can check out what I wrote about Howard here. It will only fuel the silly ones who think I'm a magic homer for some reason, or that a stat I made before the finals was based on their outcome, but I don't really care too much if they have fuel... easy fires to put out. 

Magic fans will love it though... its the other stat based thing I wrote.

http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2009/04/d12-dpoy-mvp-candidate-dwight-howard.html


----------



## indiefan23

Basel said:


> Let's not get into any personal attacks or anything of the sort - stay on topic, please.


When you post, do you type like this???? ;0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Qgw3YSNtg&feature=related


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Two facts.
> 
> 1. Kobe is considered great because he's a great scorer.


that's a part of why he's considered great. he's also considered great because he does everything well. so strike one on fact one. 




indiefan23 said:


> 2. He's considered a great scorer because of those 96 highest scoring games.


he's considered a great scorer because he's unquestionably a great scorer. 



indiefan23 said:


> One simple answer: He did not play nearly as well as the scoring average/points in those games indicates. Not even close to as well.
> 
> How do you respond to that?


how exactly does your "stat" show that to be the case? 

take away all of kobe's 40 point games, and his prime averages (2000 and later) are still 26 ppg, 5.5 apg, 5.9 rpg, 55% ts%. that's removing 96 40+ games. 

in the 96 games, he averaged 46 ppg, 4 apg, 6 rpg, 63% ts%. again, did he play well in those games? did he play well in the other 652 games?


----------



## indiefan23

Jakain said:


> I haven't really took some time to break down the new stat you made; however the language you used in your article doesn't help to make it look legitimate since you basically put Kobe in a negative light whenever you could. The tone throughout is just Kobe-bashing and while it works for sportswriters who are already well known and have a portfolio in this; its not going to help an amateur writer trying to get respect.


Umm... how does saying he deserved his championship and played great in the finals put Kobe in a bad light?

Heh, and about sports writers and getting respect... what? You think Bill Simmons or anyone like him didn't post articles critical of players when they weren't huge? You get respect by being consistent, fair and through not by sticking to puff pieces. Half the reason people read blogs anyway is because mainstream media sources like ESPN et al have way too much promotion masquerading as analysis anyway.

There are two guarantees for anything I write. If I hold one player to a standard, I hold all players to it. If I'm bais, I'll admit it and tell you the extent of it and the reasons for it. I give Iverson/Marbury a break because of their backgrounds, which I think is valid. I more look at it as rooting for the underdogs in life instead of bias though.

I've already got a successful professional career so if I don't 'make it' in the sports writing world I'll be happy with the readers I do have appreciating my opinions.


----------



## kflo

btw i think your numbers are even wrong. in his 40-44 games (53 games), he averaged 4.3 apg. in his 45-49 games (19 games), he averaged 4.2 apg. in his 50-54 (16 games), 3.7, and his 55+ (8 games), 2.9. 

and noone besides jordan has more than 2 games in the 55+ bucket.


----------



## kflo

there's nothing worse than someone complaining about how someone isn't that good and won't win, and then when they do, says well, yeah, they changed to play the way i said they should. it's lame.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> btw i think your numbers are even wrong. in his 40-44 games (53 games), he averaged 4.3 apg. in his 45-49 games (19 games), he averaged 4.2 apg. in his 50-54 (16 games), 3.7, and his 55+ (8 games), 2.9.
> 
> and noone besides jordan has more than 2 games in the 55+ bucket.


Its > 40 point games. I like your suggestion though... perhaps I'll add that as a second perspective though I'm doubting it will change the results much. There's a positive correlation between increased FG%, assists and scoring, and everyone else tends to score more by raising their FG% and assists while Kobe does the opposite and kills the other two stats to generate more points.

Hmm... no one besides Jordan played so selfishly either so it makes sense however Jordan's production is way less of a drop and more or less stays consistent over his scoring. As pointed out in the article, if the other players didn't get all those dimes they would be getting way, way more 50 point games.

Hmm... if you wanted we could agree on a number in points that an assist should actually be worth and I'll calculate what the number of 50/60 point games result was if they had the same dimes as Kobe. But only if you're not hating. I don't wanna waste my time on somoeone who's just going to say I'm stupid.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> there's nothing worse than someone complaining about how someone isn't that good and won't win, and then when they do, says well, yeah, they changed to play the way i said they should. it's lame.


Umm... it's exactly what happened. Why is it bad? If Kobe continues to play that way I'll be a fan of his and marvel that he's the only player, maybe in history, who was already really, really good and at 30 'made a leap'. Nash kinda did the same thing I spose but its a totally different kind of leap. Nash's game just improved he didn't really change it. Anyway, whats wrong with that? I'm being honest and fair. He stopped doing the things I couldn't stand so I admitted, yea, I can stand him


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, man, I saw the games. Kobe stopped driving to the hole and started jacking distance shots. Kobe's injuries were nothing like a torn labrum... didn't he hurt have an ankle sprain or something? And wasn't it in January? Hmm... yea, the team even went 6-8 when Kobe was out. You can argue something about playing weak teams if you want, which I'm sure is an excuse you'll bring up, but in the stretch they beat GSW twice, charlotte, portland and new jersey, Minny and lost a game by 1 point to houston... without Kobe.
> 
> When Odom got hurt, they went 2-18 posting losses to GSW, portland, minny and were blown out by houston.* Theres no excuse for it. Farmar showed legitimate progress and regressed to a worse year then his rookie season. Sasha has never been 'terrible'. LA got even more good players which cut into his minutes but he's always been very decent for a role player.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> And how is this Kobe's fault? Seriously Kobe has done alot of dumb things, but youc an't blame him for every player's shortcoming.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> there's nothing worse than someone complaining about how someone isn't that good and won't win, and then when they do, says well, yeah, they changed to play the way i said they should. it's lame.


Umm... why? Its honest. I couldn't stand the guy for the listed reasons. He didn't play that way so now I can stand him playing that way? Its just being fair.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... it's exactly what happened. Why is it bad? If Kobe continues to play that way I'll be a fan of his and marvel that he's the only player, maybe in history, who was already really, really good and at 30 'made a leap'. Nash kinda did the same thing I spose but its a totally different kind of leap. Nash's game just improved he didn't really change it. Anyway, whats wrong with that? I'm being honest and fair. He stopped doing the things I couldn't stand so I admitted, yea, I can stand him


Kobe's game hasn't change at all. It is basic common sense, you tend to shoot less when the talent around is better. Just look what happened when McGrady teamed with Yao, and when Iverson went to Denver.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> And how is this Kobe's fault? Seriously Kobe has done alot of dumb things, but youc an't blame him for every player's shortcoming.


Not at all and I think that's a very valid and fair statement. He's not responsible for everything. I will blame him for almost no one making sustained progress though. I don't know who else there is to blame. Their coaching staff is fantastic and beyond reproach so who else is there??? Not one player has been developed successfully under Kobe's wing. All have shown some progress and then check out. Kobe 'has' had players with plenty of potential. Sure he's had some guys who are lemons but he's never made lemonade and I'm going to fairly hold it against him. All truly great players have unequivocally done this. Kobe never has.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Not at all and I think that's a very valid and fair statement. He's not responsible for everything. I will blame him for almost no one making sustained progress though. I don't know who else there is to blame. Their coaching staff is fantastic and beyond reproach so who else is there??? Not one player has been developed successfully under Kobe's wing. All have shown some progress and then check out. Kobe 'has' had players with plenty of potential. Sure he's had some guys who are lemons but he's never made lemonade and I'm going to fairly hold it against him. All truly great players have unequivocally done this. Kobe never has.


And that is the problem, you are not blaming the actually players themselves. They are not childern, but grown man. They are the only responsible for their play on the court, not Kobe Bryant, not Phil Jackson, just themselves. Also, Trevor Ariza developed well playing with Kobe, Shannon Brown, Josh powell, even Pau Gasol improved by playing with Kobe. This team wasn't built over night, it has been in the making since 2006.


----------



## bball2223

:laugh: Those sent from the land of trolls never cease to amaze me.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Kobe's game hasn't change at all. It is basic common sense, you tend to shoot less when the talent around is better. Just look what happened when McGrady teamed with Yao, and when Iverson went to Denver.


Umm... t-mac shot about 20/game in Orlando and about 20/game in Houston. Iverson went from a team where he was the best player to a team where he was the second best player so its totally different. Kobe shot about 20/game one year and 27 the next on the same team. Its not even close.


----------



## Game3525

bball2223 said:


> :laugh: Those sent from the land of trolls never cease to amaze me.


I know seriously, a guy like Hollinger who I can't stand at makes valid points. This guy is blaming Kobe for guys like Kwame, Smush, Sasha, Farmer's development even though guys like Kwame and Smush played the best ball of their career under Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... t-mac shot about 20/game in Orlando and about 20/game in Houston. Iverson went from a team where he was the best player to a team where he was the second best player so its totally different. Kobe shot about 20/game one year and 27 the next on the same team. Its not even close.


It is close, all their shots decreased once they started playing with better talent. Kobe took 27 shots a game in 05-06, AI took 25 shots a game in 05-06. Iverson went to 19 a game when he started playing in Denver from 2006-08, Kobe shot went down to 20 a game in 07-08, and has been that ever since. More talent around you, less and better shots, it is real simple.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

So now i'm a Kobe hater? Please. There isn't anyone in the NBA that I hate. I didn't post this thread in order to bash Kobe, I just thought it was a overall a well written article that broke down some numbers. I wasn't trying to get a rise out of Laker fans or in anyway bash Kobe, i'm just trying to start some NBA discussion, just like I ALWAYS do.


And Jamel you dunce, I never said that the Lakers haven't shown they were better than the Magic. I said that the Lakers didn't really IMPRESS me in the Finals. I felt the Magic had many opportunities and didn't capitalize, that's it. I said that the Lakers won the NBA Championship fair and square and that it was their year. Alot of teams had some injuries, yes....but it still doesn't change the fact that it was LA's / Kobe's time and they did what they had to do and won a ring. Plain and simple.


It's like alot of Laker fans have this complex where they make something out of nothing, anything to be able to protect their team. They LOOK for anything that resembles a slight and they force the issue just to argue about their team. Lighten up please.


----------



## Game3525

Prolific Scorer said:


> So now i'm a Kobe hater? Please. There isn't anyone in the NBA that I hate. I didn't post this thread in order to bash Kobe, I just thought it was a overall a well written article that broke down some numbers. I wasn't trying to get a rise out of Laker fans or in anyway bash Kobe, i'm just trying to start some NBA discussion, just like I ALWAYS do.
> 
> 
> And Jamel you dunce, I never said that the Lakers haven't shown they were better than the Magic. I said that the Lakers didn't really IMPRESS me in the Finals. I felt the Magic had many opportunities and didn't capitalize, that's it. I said that the Lakers won the NBA Championship fair and square and that it was their year. Alot of teams had some injuries, yes....but it still doesn't change the fact that it was LA's / Kobe's time and they did what they had to do and won a ring. Plain and simple.
> 
> 
> It's like alot of Laker fans have this complex where they make something out of nothing, anything to be able to protect their team. They LOOK for anything that resembles a slight and they force the issue just to argue about their team. Lighten up please.


Your missing the point, it is not about criticism about Kobe or anyone, it is the fact that alot of this isn't even valid criticism. Hollinger at least has the numbers to back it up, this guy's stat just basically tells us Kobe has less assist in big scoring games. The real question is why did you posted the article and still haven't told us what the numbers mean to you.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> Not at all and I think that's a very valid and fair statement. He's not responsible for everything. I will blame him for almost no one making sustained progress though. I don't know who else there is to blame. Their coaching staff is fantastic and beyond reproach so who else is there??? Not one player has been developed successfully under Kobe's wing. All have shown some progress and then check out. Kobe 'has' had players with plenty of potential. Sure he's had some guys who are lemons but he's never made lemonade and I'm going to fairly hold it against him. All truly great players have unequivocally done this. Kobe never has.


This is great comedy. Keep it coming. :rofl:


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> And that is the problem, you are not blaming the actually players themselves. They are not childern, but grown man. They are the only responsible for their play on the court, not Kobe Bryant, not Phil Jackson, just themselves. Also, Trevor Ariza developed well playing with Kobe, Shannon Brown, Josh powell, even Pau Gasol improved by playing with Kobe. This team wasn't built over night, it has been in the making since 2006.


No, that's just not true. Players often take young guys under their wing and mentor them. It happens in all work places and it happens frequently in sports. Nearly every successful player will tell you about the guy who showed them the ropes and they credit a lot of their success to. Here are your guys.

Trevor Ariza has always been good and played better in Orlando. His only problem, ever, has been injuries.

Pau Gasol did 'not' improve. He was the franchise player of 3 year 50 win team with absolutely 0 other stars. I would argue that Pau Gasol improved Kobe, honestly.

Josh Powell has been in LA for 60 games, and, played considerably better in Golden State.

Shannon Brown has been in LA for 18 wopping games. He's in need of minutes and is the same player he was in cleveland. I really like Brown though.

So point is you just made a list of guys Kobe has supposedly developed and its a bunch of dudes who have been on the team 1-2 years and/or were good/'awesome' on other teams and none of whom have even been there long enough to get sick of Kobe's BS and/or are no where near the point where you would call them solid contributors.

Seriously? I gave an example of Jordan turning a mostly skilless athletic freak, Scotti Pippen, into the best all around player of all time. You responded with:

A bonafide franchise player LA got in the most lopsided trade ever.

A guy who plays garbage time for 4 PPG.

A guy who's always been good, played better on other teams, but got injured all the time and finally had a healthy season.

A guy who's career high is 16 points, and only cracked 20 minutes in the very first game of the playoffs and was continuously squeezed out of the rotation as they continued, not to mention he was only around for 18 regular season games, total.

Like, why bother making a weak argument like that????? I don't understand why you wouldn't just say "yea, you know what? You've got a point there. Kobe has never really helped anyone realize their potential. He needs good players to start with because he doesn't have the patience for the developing guys and just gets frustrated." Its so easy to do and no one is going to hold it against you. ;0


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> It is close, all their shots decreased once they started playing with better talent. Kobe took 27 shots a game in 05-06, AI took 25 shots a game in 05-06. Iverson went to 19 a game when he started playing in Denver from 2006-08, Kobe shot went down to 20 a game in 07-08, and has been that ever since. More talent around you, less and better shots, it is real simple.


Dude, Iverson changed his teams entirely and was at the end of him prime. He'd obviously lost a step and Melo was the best guy on his team. Wern't you talking something about how different offenses affect your numbers??? This is a different team entirely with a guy who had fallen out of his prime... thats why Philly traded him. Yes, a guy who's the second best player on his team and has lost a step (Denver AI) will take more shots then the guy who's the best player on his team (Philly AI) but that's entirely different then Kobe on the same team increasing his shots by 7 and decreasing his dimes by 1.5. Its not even in the same world. Iverson's assists even went down on Denver. Iverson lasted one season after the trade and Denver sent him to Detroit where he was benched. It wasn't the better help around him the dude just lost his mojo at 31-32 years of age.

Again, why not just ceed such an obvious point instead of putting up these knee jerk poorly thought out responses? Did you really think comparing Kobe in his absolute prime to AI in his absolute decline was going to prove anything?


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> No, that's just not true. Players often take young guys under their wing and mentor them. It happens in all work places and it happens frequently in sports. Nearly every successful player will tell you about the guy who showed them the ropes and they credit a lot of their success to. Here are your guys.
> 
> Trevor Ariza has always been good and played better in Orlando. His only problem, ever, has been injuries.
> 
> Pau Gasol did 'not' improve. He was the franchise player of 3 year 50 win team with absolutely 0 other stars. I would argue that Pau Gasol improved Kobe, honestly.
> 
> Josh Powell has been in LA for 60 games, and, played considerably better in Golden State.
> 
> Shannon Brown has been in LA for 18 wopping games. He's in need of minutes and is the same player he was in cleveland. I really like Brown though.
> 
> So point is you just made a list of guys Kobe has supposedly developed and its a bunch of dudes who have been on the team 1-2 years and/or were good/'awesome' on other teams and none of whom have even been there long enough to get sick of Kobe's BS and/or are no where near the point where you would call them solid contributors.
> 
> Seriously? I gave an example of Jordan turning a mostly skilless athletic freak, Scotti Pippen, into the best all around player of all time. You responded with:
> 
> A bonafide franchise player LA got in the most lopsided trade ever.
> 
> A guy who plays garbage time for 4 PPG.
> 
> A guy who's always been good, played better on other teams, but got injured all the time and finally had a healthy season.
> 
> A guy who's career high is 16 points, and only cracked 20 minutes in the very first game of the playoffs and was continuously squeezed out of the rotation as they continued, not to mention he was only around for 18 regular season games, total.
> 
> Like, why bother making a weak argument like that????? I don't understand why you wouldn't just say "yea, you know what? You've got a point there. Kobe has never really helped anyone realize their potential. He needs good players to start with because he doesn't have the patience for the developing guys and just gets frustrated." Its so easy to do and no one is going to hold it against you. ;0



Lmao, the stupidity of this is astounding. Players are responsible for how they perform in the end, the main reason why guys like Parker aren't there is becasue of their attitudes, Smush for exampled argued with Phil Jackson. Also Ariza and Pau improved under playing with Kobe and Phil Jackson. Ariza developed a shot which he never had in Orlando and was one of the reasons he never got much time, Pau became a tougher player then he was in Memphis. Kobe has been the same player since day one, the only that has changed is he is a better leader and has a superior supporting cast.

Also it is not a weak point what I just said, Kobe workethic helped his teammates improved, they have all said it. Even his USA teammates said so.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Dude, Iverson changed his teams entirely and was at the end of him prime. He'd obviously lost a step and Melo was the best guy on his team. Wern't you talking something about how different offenses affect your numbers??? This is a different team entirely with a guy who had fallen out of his prime... thats why Philly traded him. Yes, a guy who's the second best player on his team and has lost a step (Denver AI) will take more shots then the guy who's the best player on his team (Philly AI) but that's entirely different then Kobe on the same team increasing his shots by 7 and decreasing his dimes by 1.5. Its not even in the same world. Iverson's assists even went down on Denver. Iverson lasted one season after the trade and Denver sent him to Detroit where he was benched. It wasn't the better help around him the dude just lost his mojo at 31-32 years of age.
> 
> Again, why not just ceed such an obvious point instead of putting up these knee jerk poorly thought out responses? Did you really think comparing Kobe in his absolute prime to AI in his absolute decline was going to prove anything?


AI wasn't decline in 2006 prior to getting traded, he was averaging over 31 a game leading the league in scoring. My point in bringing it up is because the offensive talent in Denver is far better then it was in Philly, talentwise he didn't need to take 25-30 shots a game because he was playing with guys like Melo, Smith, Martin, Nene. They were the top offensive team in 07-08. Kobe's team improved offensively whiched allowed him to take less shots. It right there, if you knew the stats. He dropped from 27 in 05-06 to 20 in 07-08, the reason better talent.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Your missing the point, it is not about criticism about Kobe or anyone, it is the fact that alot of this isn't even valid criticism. Hollinger at least has the numbers to back it up, this guy's stat just basically tells us Kobe has less assist in big scoring games. The real question is why did you posted the article and still haven't told us what the numbers mean to you.


Are you actually talking to me???????? You must not be cuz I wrote 5k words on what they mean to me. Okay, I think you must be talking to someone else cuz thats just crazy.

I would love for you to talk about the numbers. If they are invalid it would be awesome if you could tell me why. Considering my stat is supposed to reflect trends of assist production in high scoring games I would like to thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Are you actually talking to me???????? You must not be cuz I wrote 5k words on what they mean to me. Okay, I think you must be talking to someone else cuz thats just crazy.
> 
> I would love for you to talk about the numbers. If they are invalid it would be awesome if you could tell me why. Considering my stat is supposed to reflect trends of assist production in high scoring games I would like to thank you for agreeing with me.


I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Proflic. Your stat is invalid because it doesn't takt into account pace and FGA. All it tells us is that Kobe passes less when he has big scoring games, does that really tell you anything? Because at the end of the day, Kobe still is averaging 5 assist a game, and is one of the top at his posistion when it comes to dimes.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> AI wasn't decline in 2006 prior to getting traded, he was averaging over 31 a game leading the league in scoring. My point in bringing it up is because the offensive talent in Denver is far better then it was in Philly, talentwise he didn't need to take 25-30 shots a game because he was playing with guys like Melo, Smith, Martin, Nene. They were the top offensive team in 07-08. Kobe's team improved offensively whiched allowed him to take less shots. It right there, if you knew the stats. He dropped from 27 in 05-06 to 20 in 07-08, the reason better talent.


Dude, on a losing team. He went to a team with a better player then him and he was criticized intensely as being a ball hog. He gets to a new team and he tries to prove he can share the rock while declining at the same time. It was obvious that AI that last year in Philly was not the same player. He was slowing down.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> *Dude, on a losing team*. He went to a team with a better player then him and he was criticized intensely as being a ball hog. He gets to a new team and he tries to prove he can share the rock while declining at the same time. It was obvious that AI that last year in Philly was not the same player. He was slowing down.


That is the point, Denver was better then Philly, better offensive players required AI to do less then what he did in Philly, he took better shots. He was very efficient his last couple years in Philly, he averaged 33 a game on 45% shooting his last full season in Philly, those are damn good numbers.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Lmao, the stupidity of this is astounding. Players are responsible for how they perform in the end, the main reason why guys like Parker aren't there is becasue of their attitudes, Smush for exampled argued with Phil Jackson. Also Ariza and Pau improved under playing with Kobe and Phil Jackson. Ariza developed a shot which he never had in Orlando and was one of the reasons he never got much time, Pau became a tougher player then he was in Memphis. Kobe has been the same player since day one, the only that has changed is he is a better leader and has a superior supporting cast.
> 
> Also it is not a weak point what I just said, Kobe workethic helped his teammates improved, they have all said it. Even his USA teammates said so.


Hmm... and maybe if Smush's leader had a good attitude it would have rubbbed off on him the same way Nash's attitude rubbed off on his team.

Pau Gasol was the 'only' star on a 50 win team when the west was way stronger then it is today, especially at the center position. Playing in the triangle will help a guy like Pau because its built for a good passing big man, which Gasol is in spades. Holy crap, I can't believe you're trying to argue that players don't improve other players. Its so GD stupid I'm going to make a thread asking this forum if they agree with you. This is by far the dumbest thing you've ever said, to me anyway. No telling what youv'e told others.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... and maybe if Smush's leader had a good attitude it would have rubbbed off on him the same way Nash's attitude rubbed off on his team.
> 
> Pau Gasol was the 'only' star on a 50 win team when the west was way stronger then it is today, especially at the center position. Playing in the triangle will help a guy like Pau because its built for a good passing big man, which Gasol is in spades. Holy crap, I can't believe you're trying to argue that players don't improve other players. Its so GD stupid I'm going to make a thread asking this forum if they agree with you. This is by far the dumbest thing you've ever said, to me anyway. No telling what youv'e told others.


Where have I said players don't improve other players? My point is that you can't blame Kobe when guys didn't pan out, they have to take responsibilty for themselves and do what they can to improve. With Smush it was never a talent question, it was his poor workethic that ticked everyone off. Look at a guy like Fisher, who is less talented then Smush. But his workethic is what gained his teammates respect, the only thing Kobe wants from his teammates is too work hard, Kwame and Smush never did. Sasha and Farmer for all their faults work hard, it is why Kobe likes them. Pau Gasol was a soft player in Memphis and his first year in LA, he toughed up and his workethic improved dramaticly this year. That is why I said he is a better player in LA then he was in Memphis.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Proflic. Your stat is invalid because it doesn't takt into account pace and FGA. All it tells us is that Kobe passes less when he has big scoring games, does that really tell you anything? Because at the end of the day, Kobe still is averaging 5 assist a game, and is one of the top at his posistion when it comes to dimes.


Keep it civil - VP.

The stat does take into account pace and FGA when it uses each player's assist averages to normalize the data set. Pace adjustments are used on stats dealing with quantities. Someone scoring 10 PPG in 50 possessions would score 20 in 100 possessions. My stat is showing the delta, or change, across a set of intervals. Players could play in games with 100 times the pace or FGA and it would have 0 effect on who would come out on top. None. I repeat. Nil.

You're just taking arguments people use for other stats you're more used to like PPG and throwing up the same words people use to attack those stats. Its evident you don't actually understand how it works and are rather just bashing it because Kobe does not look as good as other players in it's results. If you want to actually present something relevant I'm totally open, but for now, you're just guessing.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> That is the point, Denver was better then Philly, better offensive players required AI to do less then what he did in Philly, he took better shots. He was very efficient his last couple years in Philly, he averaged 33 a game on 45% shooting his last full season in Philly, those are damn good numbers.


It is NOT the same in any way, shape or form. With Kobe you're talking about the players 'around' him being better or worse. In Philly there were crappy players around AI, and in Denver AI was a player around someone else.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> The ironic thing is you post the same way Kobe shoots. Rapidly and forced.
> 
> The stat does take into account pace and FGA when it uses each player's assist averages to normalize the data set. Pace adjustments are used on stats dealing with quantities. Someone scoring 10 PPG in 50 possessions would score 20 in 100 possessions. My stat is showing the delta, or change, across a set of intervals. Players could play in games with 100 times the pace or FGA and it would have 0 effect on who would come out on top. None. I repeat. Nil.
> 
> You're just taking arguments people use for other stats you're more used to like PPG and throwing up the same words people use to attack those stats. Its evident you don't actually understand how it works and are rather just bashing it because Kobe does not look as good as other players in it's results. If you want to actually present something relevant I'm totally open, but for now, you're just guessing.


Your stat doesn't tell us anything at all besides Kobe doesn't get as many assist in big scoring games, it doesn't tell if it is a detriment to his team or anything of importance.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> It is NOT the same in any way, shape or form. With Kobe you're talking about the players 'around' him being better or worse. In Philly there were crappy players around AI, and in Denver AI was a player around someone else.


It is the same thing, better talent! AI and Kobe got easier shots when they played with better players. It is not rocket science at all.


----------



## Kneejoh

...Why the eff did I read all of his posts, for the first time in my life I actually do feel dumber for putting myself through it. Indiewhatever, I swear you have the worst logic in the entire world. Anything that proves you wrong you just twist around to try to make Kobe look bad. Your stat is crap. 

It's as stupid as the stat about Kobe's shot attempts in wins and losses it's irrelevant and doesn't actually make sense. Like people have said it doesn't tell us anything. 

And could you please answer me this question. Why didn't Brian Cook, Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Maurice Evans, Vladimir Radmanovic, and countless other players become all-stars when they left Kobe? Because clearly he was holding them back. 

It's Kobe's fault that Brian Cook didn't spend time in the gym working on defense.
It's Kobe's fault that Kwame Brown has rocks for hands.
it's Kobe's fault that Smush Parker has no brain for basketball.
It's Kobe's fault that Maurice Evans didn't pan out into a HOF.
It's Kobe's fault that Chris Mihm isn't the next Rik Smits.
It's Kobe's fault for everything.

He is the only player in the history of sports that has had this big of an impact on so many careers. And if it is truly Kobe's fault that these players didn't reach their potential please answer me why they didn't reach their potential after they stopped playing with him. Wait don't because it will probably be because Kobe scarred them emotionally so much that they couldn't recover right? Entertain me with an answer please.


----------



## indiefan23

thug_immortal8 said:


> ...Why the eff did I read all of his posts, for the first time in my life I actually do feel dumber for putting myself through it. Indiewhatever, I swear you have the worst logic in the entire world. Anything that proves you wrong you just twist around to try to make Kobe look bad. Your stat is crap.
> 
> It's as stupid as the stat about Kobe's shot attempts in wins and losses it's irrelevant and doesn't actually make sense. Like people have said it doesn't tell us anything.
> 
> And could you please answer me this question. Why didn't Brian Cook, Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Maurice Evans, Vladimir Radmanovic, and countless other players become all-stars when they left Kobe? Because clearly he was holding them back.
> 
> It's Kobe's fault that Brian Cook didn't spend time in the gym working on defense.
> It's Kobe's fault that Kwame Brown has rocks for hands.
> it's Kobe's fault that Smush Parker has no brain for basketball.
> It's Kobe's fault that Maurice Evans didn't pan out into a HOF.
> It's Kobe's fault that Chris Mihm isn't the next Rik Smits.
> It's Kobe's fault for everything.
> 
> He is the only player in the history of sports that has had this big of an impact on so many careers. And if it is truly Kobe's fault that these players didn't reach their potential please answer me why they didn't reach their potential after they stopped playing with him. Wait don't because it will probably be because Kobe scarred them emotionally so much that they couldn't recover right? Entertain me with an answer please.


Hmm... well, theres a simple solution for that: role players are not supposed to be all-stars. Multiple players played better after Kobe... its been shown and explained that I'm not stating he ruined all their careers but rather helped none of them as they all made progress and regressed.

Do you have any reasons for thinking that? Its a solid stat. Its really funny here... all these LA fans have come on and said its a useless meaningless stat, but none of them have really given any reasons for thinking so.

So I'll ask you, if its as stupid as you're saying, why doesn't my stat make sense or do you understand it? Or do you acknowledge that you just made an entire post of baseless conjectures?


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... well, theres a simple solution for that: role players are not supposed to be all-stars. Multiple players played better after Kobe... its been shown and explained that I'm not stating he ruined all their careers but rather helped none of them as they all made progress and regressed.
> 
> Do you have any reasons for thinking that? Its a solid stat. Its really funny here... all these LA fans have come on and said its a useless meaningless stat, but none of them have really given any reasons for thinking so.
> 
> So I'll ask you, if its as stupid as you're saying, why doesn't my stat make sense or do you understand it? Or do you acknowledge that you just made an entire post of baseless conjectures?



Your "stat" doesn't tell us anything. All it says is Kobe get's less assists when he has big-scoring games. It doesn't tell us if it is detrimental to team success(BTW the Lakers have a winning percentage when Kobe goes 40+). The rest of it is your own opinions and theory, the funny thing is that you say Kobe failed even though he just led his team to a 4th championship in nine years. Jesus, I wonder what that makes Lebron and Wade's season. What makes it worse is you are only using their 40+ games, you brought this it up to any GM you would be laughed out the building.

P.S. you do know assists is the worst stat to use when judging if a player is unselfish.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

Kobe comes to training camp in shape and focused, that alone should a send clear and resonating message to his teammates. Here you have undeniably one of the leagues best player, putting as much work off the court to improve his weaknesses. Action speaks louder than words.




And Kobe does his fair share in helping guys like Ariza, Vujacic, whom he took under his wing to become better shooters (which they did). And no one motivates Pau Gasol to push harder and become a much tougher presence than Kobe. Pau has stated this numerous times.




Additionally, old teammates like Butler has always professed that he enjoyed his time with Kobe and has learned a lot of things by playing with him. Kwame Brown always admires Kobe's patience on him (after having Gilbert Arenas and Michael Jordan as teammates).


----------



## Game3525

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> Kobe comes to training camp in shape and focused, that alone should a send clear and resonating message to his teammates. Here you have undeniably one of the leagues best player, putting as much work off the court to improve his weaknesses. Action speaks louder than words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Kobe does his fair share in helping guys like Ariza, Vujacic, whom he took under his wing to become better shooters (which they did). And no one motivates Pau Gasol to push harder and become a much tougher presence than Kobe. Pau has stated this numerous times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, old teammates like Butler has always professed that he enjoyed his time with Kobe and has learned a lot of things by playing with him. Kwame Brown always admires Kobe's patience on him (after having Gilbert Arenas and Michael Jordan as teammates).


Oh, but Kobe is a jerk because he couldn't turn Smush into the star he was mean't to be. The funny thing about it, one could argue Kobe has been a better teammate then MJ ever was.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Its > 40 point games. I like your suggestion though... perhaps I'll add that as a second perspective though I'm doubting it will change the results much. There's a positive correlation between increased FG%, assists and scoring, and everyone else tends to score more by raising their FG% and assists while Kobe does the opposite and kills the other two stats to generate more points.
> 
> Hmm... no one besides Jordan played so selfishly either so it makes sense however Jordan's production is way less of a drop and more or less stays consistent over his scoring. As pointed out in the article, if the other players didn't get all those dimes they would be getting way, way more 50 point games.
> 
> Hmm... if you wanted we could agree on a number in points that an assist should actually be worth and I'll calculate what the number of 50/60 point games result was if they had the same dimes as Kobe. But only if you're not hating. I don't wanna waste my time on somoeone who's just going to say I'm stupid.


again, in the 96 games, he averaged 46 ppg, 4 apg, 6 rpg, 63% ts%, 68% win %. again, did he play well in those games? 

and again, if you remove those 96 games, you're still left with 26 ppg, 5.5 apg, 5.9 rpg, 55% ts%. still one of the great scorers ever. that's removing over a seasons worth of games at 46 ppg. 

so again, you have a stat that looks at his best 96 games. did he play well in those games, and how does your stat address that? you haven't answered the question. i'm not sure what you're answering. 

you're looking at those 96 games. how well did he play? if that's going to be your focus, and not the other 600+ games, how well did he play?


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

Game3525 said:


> Oh, but Kobe is a jerk because he couldn't turn Smush into the star he was mean't to be. The funny thing about it, one could argue Kobe has been a better teammate then MJ ever was.


yeah, I laughed at that very poor choice of example. Of all the people they could use against Kobe, they used the guy who got waived on a lottery team. LMFAO.


----------



## Game3525

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> yeah, I laughed at that very poor choice of example. Of all the people they could use against Kobe, they used the guy who got waived on a lottery team. LMFAO.


And what makes it worse is that, the OP doesn't realize Smush played his best when he was with Kobe and Phil. His talent was never the problem, but his attitude and workethic. Which is Smush's own responsibility.


----------



## kflo

also, you started by addressing his change from '05 to '06 (decreased assists, increased scoring). which year did he have a better season?


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... and maybe if Smush's leader had a good attitude it would have rubbbed off on him the same way Nash's attitude rubbed off on his team.
> 
> Pau Gasol was the 'only' star on a 50 win team when the west was way stronger then it is today, especially at the center position. Playing in the triangle will help a guy like Pau because its built for a good passing big man, which Gasol is in spades. Holy crap, I can't believe you're trying to argue that players don't improve other players. Its so GD stupid I'm going to make a thread asking this forum if they agree with you. This is by far the dumbest thing you've ever said, to me anyway. No telling what youv'e told others.


Why wasn't Wade able to turn Smush into a good player? Hell, why did Smush REGRESS when he left the Lakers? Do you actually think that Nash could've turned Smush into a legitament player in the league?


----------



## Game3525

VanillaPrice said:


> Why wasn't Wade able to turn Smush into a good player? Hell, why did Smush REGRESS when he left the Lakers? Do you actually think that Nash could've turned Smush into a legitament player in the league?


If Phil Jackson can't do it, no one can.


----------



## Luke

Game and indiefan - Chill out, I don't feel like deleting any more posts.


----------



## Kneejoh

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... well, theres a simple solution for that: role players are not supposed to be all-stars. Multiple players played better after Kobe... its been shown and explained that I'm not stating he ruined all their careers but rather helped none of them as they all made progress and regressed.
> 
> Do you have any reasons for thinking that? Its a solid stat. Its really funny here... all these LA fans have come on and said its a useless meaningless stat, but none of them have really given any reasons for thinking so.
> 
> So I'll ask you, if its as stupid as you're saying, why doesn't my stat make sense or do you understand it? Or do you acknowledge that you just made an entire post of baseless conjectures?


No I didn't. And I cannot debate with you if you honestly think that grown men are so easily influenced by other grown men into not fulfilling their potential as athletes, even if it is just to be a role player.

So I ask 

Did Kobe make Brian Cook's defense regress?
Did Kobe make the ball catching abilities of Kwame regress?
Did Kobe make Smush's Bball IQ and Work ethic regress?
Did Kobe make Maurice Evans' shooting and decision making regress?
Did Kobe make Chris Mihm's offense skills which he didn't have regress?

And the reason that your stat is idiotic is because it has nothing to do with basketball and doesn't tell us anything about the game or the players. More specifically what you are telling us the stat tells is wrong. Everybody that knows and watches basketball without bias knows that Kobe is a great facilitator, and it's no ****ing surprise that when he scores 60 he won't still have the same number of assists. I could have told you that myself without fancy math. 

Here's another observation that doesn't need a stat to back it up: A player that has 15 assists in a game will not score the same amount of points as he usually does. Example if Lebron averages 28ppg and 8 asg and then has a game where he gets 15 points and 15 assists. I will not come to the conclusion that Lebron isn't a good scorer anymore. I will simply come to the conclusion that as a basketball player you do whatever you need to win, sometimes that is to score sometimes that is to pass more, sometimes its a great balance. 

Another example: And I'm bs'ing these stats for logic's sake. If Kobe on average has the ball go through him on offense 100 times in a 48 minute game and for ex. he uses 40 of those possessions to attempt to score, 40 do to nothing but swing the ball, and 20 to facilitate. If in one certain game (40+ scoring games) he heats up, then he will have to sacrifice some of his other possessions where he does nothing or where he facilitates. It's a supply and demand thing, there are only so many possessions to go around, and if one game he uses more of his possessions to score than there will be less possessions to facilitate. 

Finally, you have to consider that every stat is grainy and doesn't directly translate how the game is being played. What I mean is when the Lakers have 4 guys on the 3 point line and Pau in the post, Kobe gets doubled and passes out of it to Fisher who passes to Ariza around the perimeter who passes to Odom for a three in the corner on the opposite wing. What does Kobe get on the play? Nothing, but if you watched the play you see who the "facilitator" is.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> psst: All stats are 'made up'. Even PPG was 'made up'. I'm a computer scientist with over 10 years experience and have done statistical sports work in the past that was much more complex then this diddy. This stat is simplistic. Two sentences? I'm not sure how being able to explain something in two sentences or if you'll be able to understand it, but I can do it never the less...
> 
> It shows how a player's assist production changes in conjunction with their scoring production. It does this by employing quantile normalization of average assits to produce player assist trends with respect to 5 point scoring intervals.
> 
> I'm not a professional statistician, but I'm not stupid either nor is this very complicated. I'm guessing you'll e-wimp out before me.


So in other words you showed that when Kobe Bryant shoots a lot, he'll sometimes shoot too much. And that's a selfish act....but then you state in your very own article that, in the end, Bryant's teams consistently win more games when scores 40+ points? Which means your stat shows, er, what exactly? Kobe Bryant is sometimes selfish and hogs the ball, welcome to the 21st century; but since his 40+ games consistently lead to higher winning percentages for his teams, no matter how "selfish" the act, the end result benefits the team. This is a fact that your stat does not address, making your stat useless. This is not opinion, it's fact; unless you want to explain an alternate scenario your statistic explains, because it certainly doesn't explain Bryant's lack of 50+ win squads between 2004 and 2007. 



indiefan23 said:


> Two facts.
> 
> 1. Kobe is considered great because he's a great scorer.
> 
> 2. He's considered a great scorer because of those 96 highest scoring games.
> 
> One simple answer: He did not play nearly as well as the scoring average/points in those games indicates. Not even close to as well.
> 
> How do you respond to that?


Bryant is the same player he was last season and the year before; he just has much, much better teammates. Smart people have already come to this conclusion, and as I stated before, you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it because, statistically, it is undeniable that Smush Parker, Tierre Brown, Chris Mihm, Kwame Brown, Chucky Atkins, etc. were are terrible role players, and the fact that you think Bryant should have won *50-55* games with those squads shows you're not very well informed. 



indiefan23 said:


> The only other responses I've heard that really put fourth a valid argument is "so what if Kobe plays selfishly. It didn't stop him from winning a title" except I never state he's not great, I state he is great, and his personal exploits derailed his career which could have ended with 8 (or more) titles, many MVPs and a ceiling of true GOAT contention. Its been wasted.


WTH? You think Kobe Bryant should have 8+ NBA championships by age 30? 

Yeah, at this point I'm almost certain you're stealth trolling, so unless you can answer kflo's questions and explain how Bryant's teams consistently win more often when he scores 40+ throughout his career, then your article will continue to be bunk.


----------



## Game3525

That is crazy IMO if he thinks Kobe should have eight titles by now. The team was not good enough to win from 05-07. Winning is easier said then done, it is amazing the Lakers were able to rebuild so quickly as it is, but eight titles? Seriously!


----------



## Sir Patchwork

This thread is crazy. I guess it's to be expected for the offseason after Kobe leads his team to a title. Kobe is just a player who people love to love and love to hate. Anyone trying to take anything away from him right now is just nitpicking a great player that rubs them wrong. Bottom line. 

This article is the equivelant of 23AJ's attempts to tear down LeBron.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, I'm not set on hating Kobe at all. Once Kobe changed his game in the finals I quite enjoyed watching him honestly and basically said this in the article along with that he deserved the title. Its like this guys: if you don't read the article and criticize me, I will cut you up on it. I spent oodles of time over the years and loads of time to write this. Comparatively to the time you won't even take to read for 10 minutes your level of hate is what, a million times mine. How many times do you think someone has said something damning about me that is 'directly' contradicted in the article I wrote alone in this thread alone? 10? 20? 30?


Stop saying I didn't read it. I read it. I'm sorry you spent a bunch of time on it, and I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion as much as the way you got to it. 

Hollinger's system says that Brandon Roy has been as good as Kobe Bryant this year, and even though I don't agree with that, I can't criticize how thorough his system is because it has very few holes. That's the difference.


----------



## Jamel Irief

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, yep, I agree, that's why I wrote, oh, 5000 extra words that were not about the stat for context. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> And you obviously didn't read it either or you'd know that unlike you suggested above, the amoun of dimes you get a game have no bearing on this stat. Having a high IQ and actually using it are totally different things BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... see, this is the perception is it not?
> 
> 1. Mabye Kwame was nervous because the best player on his team who most likely hated him was glaring at him every single time he made a mistake. Its a lot of pressure when someone he probably spent high school following like crazy gets a hate on for you.
> 
> 2. Kwame <<< Shaq, Kwame's hands were questionable, but how can you really say he was THAT bad when he almost shot 60% and had less turnovers per 36 minutes then Shaq *EVER *had in his entire career? I remember Kwame killing Phoenix and finally showing his potential as well as him dropping passes. The fact is, Kwame's numbers in LA don't support ANY of the intense criticisms Kobe fans throw at him. The only reason Kwame is considered a horrible, horrible player is because he was drafted way over his potential at #1. Being a draft bust has no relevance on how good a player you actually are. If Kwame was drafted in the second round he'd be known as a solid pick. The reality is just that 60% shooting and 6-7 boards and 1.2 blocks in under 30 minutes are great numbers for a role player. Truth.


Hey what does the 23 in your username stand for? The guy who tore down the confidence of a young 19 year old Kwame?










6 boards in 30 minutes is not good for a 6'10" 260 pound athletic beast who couldn't score to save his life.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Hey what does the 23 in your username stand for? The guy who tore down the confidence of a young 19 year old Kwame?
> 
> 6 boards in 30 minutes is not good for a 6'10" 260 pound athletic beast who couldn't score to save his life.


Yes, it does. I agree with you that Jordan tore down his confidence. I think Jordan was pissed he was forced to pick him. He had a deal set up to trade the pick for Elton Brand but the owner kyboshed it thinking he could market Kwame as the first #1 HS pick ever. Stupid owners. Yep, Jordan has his flaws 'n without Phil Jackson to manage the team they kind of got exposed. I'm cool with that.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Why wasn't Wade able to turn Smush into a good player? Hell, why did Smush REGRESS when he left the Lakers? Do you actually think that Nash could've turned Smush into a legitament player in the league?


Smush regressed 'while' he was on the lakers, not after. Its pretty obvious.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> Smush regressed 'while' he was on the lakers, not after. Its pretty obvious.


Wow, yet Smush had career highs in points, min, assist in his two year stint in LA, yeah some regression.


----------



## indiefan23

Game3525 said:


> Your "stat" doesn't tell us anything. All it says is Kobe get's less assists when he has big-scoring games. It doesn't tell us if it is detrimental to team success(*BTW the Lakers have a winning percentage when Kobe goes 40+*). The rest of it is your own opinions and theory, the funny thing is that you say Kobe failed even though he just led his team to a 4th championship in nine years. Jesus, I wonder what that makes Lebron and Wade's season. What makes it worse is you are only using their 40+ games, you brought this it up to any GM you would be laughed out the building.
> 
> P.S. you do know assists is the worst stat to use when judging if a player is unselfish.


And for arguing vehemently against me without actually reading my article, gamer, meet my ignore list. I don't have time to waste on fools who pretend they read something, talk trash about it, and then it becomes obvious they did not read it. You've basically been lying this entire thread in pretending you did read it when you did not as you keep posting things that I specifically addressed. I'm not going to rewrite the article for you because you're lazy, or continue talking to a troll like they're a legit poster. So, c ya, meet my ignore list.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> And for arguing vehemently against me without actually reading my article, gamer, meet my ignore list. I don't have time to waste on fools who pretend they read something, talk trash about it, and then it becomes obvious they did not read it. You've basically been lying this entire thread in pretending you did read it when you did not as you keep posting things that I specifically addressed. I'm not going to rewrite the article for you because you're lazy, or continue talking to a *troll* like they're a legit poster. So, c ya, meet my ignore list.


Lmao, pot kettle black. I know you pointed out Kobe's winning percenatage when he goes 40+. I brought it back up because I honestly think you forget why they play the game.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Why wasn't Wade able to turn Smush into a good player? Hell, why did Smush REGRESS when he left the Lakers? Do you actually think that Nash could've turned Smush into a legitament player in the league?


Hmm... Parker regressed while he was on the lakers as I pointed out. Wade only had Smush Parker for 9 games. With Nash? Yea, I'm betting a guy like Smush would have been much better in Phoenix. His game was a pretty good fit for their system.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> again, in the 96 games, he averaged 46 ppg, 4 apg, 6 rpg, 63% ts%, 68% win %. again, did he play well in those games?
> 
> and again, if you remove those 96 games, you're still left with 26 ppg, 5.5 apg, 5.9 rpg, 55% ts%. still one of the great scorers ever. that's removing over a seasons worth of games at 46 ppg.
> 
> so again, you have a stat that looks at his best 96 games. did he play well in those games, and how does your stat address that? you haven't answered the question. i'm not sure what you're answering.
> 
> you're looking at those 96 games. how well did he play? if that's going to be your focus, and not the other 600+ games, how well did he play?


26 ppg is not one of the best scorers ever. Lebron demolishes Kobe when you consider their drop in dimes. I think you're missing the point. Kobe is talented, and one of the most talented in the league by far. I'm not saying he's untaletned, I'm saying his scoring is over rated. It is.


----------



## Game3525

indiefan23 said:


> *26 ppg is not one of the best scorers ever. Lebron demolishes Kobe when you consider their drop in dimes.* I think you're missing the point. Kobe is talented, and one of the most talented in the league by far. I'm not saying he's untaletned, I'm saying his scoring is over rated. It is.


Dimes don't mean much when you are dominating the ball like Lebron does. Different offensive system will have an affect on the amount of assist one player has.


----------



## indiefan23

Here is a good question. Of all the arguments made against my stat in this thread what do you guys think the best one of them is? Which one stands out as the most solid?


----------



## Cap

^ Pretty much everyone has made a solid argument against your article, e-wimp.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

indiefan23 said:


> Smush regressed 'while' he was on the lakers, not after. Its pretty obvious.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> No, that's just not true. Players often take young guys under their wing and mentor them. It happens in all work places and it happens frequently in sports. Nearly every successful player will tell you about the guy who showed them the ropes and they credit a lot of their success to. Here are your guys.
> 
> Trevor Ariza has always been good and played better in Orlando. His only problem, ever, has been injuries.


Ariza before coming to LA - 3 point FGs: 4/33. After coming to LA - RS: 61/191; Playoffs: 40/84 => total - 101/275. 

""I used it like it was the Bible," Ariza said.

What we were talking about was the shooting-practice program given to Ariza entering the summer before this season by one Kobe Bryant.

The meaning of the gesture to Ariza – and its net effect in transforming his jump shot and thus this Lakers championship team – make it the quintessence of the latter-day Bryant as a teammate. "

Trevor Ariza was never better than he was on the Lakers. He was a solid defender with a lot of athleticism who would ride the pine and wasn't allowed to shoot. Strike one.



> Pau Gasol did 'not' improve. He was the franchise player of 3 year 50 win team with absolutely 0 other stars. I would argue that Pau Gasol improved Kobe, honestly.


Gasol was 0-12 in the Playoffs before coming to LA. While agree that he was already an All Star caliber player, there's a reason his efficiency has risen considerably while in LA. His FG went up by 6% over his career average, his previous career high in TS% was .594 and he posted a TS% of .639 and .617 while teamed with Kobe. His offensive rating went from mid-110s to 128 and 126 (good for league's best) and 126. He also made the 3rd All-NBA team. Yeah, Gasol didn't improve whatsoever and I'm sure he's not one of the biggest beneficiaries of defenses focusing on Bryant. Strike two.



> Josh Powell has been in LA for 60 games, and, played considerably better in Golden State.


Wait, aren't you advocating the usage of per 36 minutes? 

Powell per 36 minutes:
LA - 12.8/9/1.4 on 44% shooting
GSW - 10.4/9.7/1.4 on 46% shooting.

Just as a thought, a considerably better line posted in GS. Strike three.



> Shannon Brown has been in LA for 18 wopping games. He's in need of minutes and is the same player he was in cleveland. I really like Brown though.


He had a PER of 15 and also played solid in the Playoffs, which actually means he's been here for 39 games. Was a poor shooter prior to joining LA and is now a legit three point threat. Should only get better since he's been trusted to play a lot more than he has (played 1 whole minute for Cleveland in their run to the Finals; in contrast to over 10 minutes per game this year in the Playoffs).



> So point is you just made a list of guys Kobe has supposedly developed and its a bunch of dudes who have been on the team 1-2 years and/or were good/'awesome' on other teams and none of whom have even been there long enough to get sick of Kobe's BS and/or are no where near the point where you would call them solid contributors.


Really? Of the 4 mentioned two are more than solid contributers, directly benefiting from Kobe. The other 2 are role players who were solid in what they were asked to do and at least 1 of them promises to get better because he's got new confidence and trust (Brown).



> Seriously? I gave an example of Jordan turning a mostly skilless athletic freak, Scotti Pippen, into the best all around player of all time. You responded with:


Jordan did not make Pippen. I've heard a lot of things that Jordan did, but this has to be the first. Unlike you, I'm sure Pip benefited from playing with one of the best ever and learned a lot from him, but it's not like Jordan taught him to play all World defense and run the point. 



> Like, why bother making a weak argument like that????? I don't understand why you wouldn't just say "yea, you know what? You've got a point there. Kobe has never really helped anyone realize their potential. He needs good players to start with because he doesn't have the patience for the developing guys and just gets frustrated." Its so easy to do and no one is going to hold it against you. ;0


Why would he say something that isn't true? Or is in fact a lie.

Since I have the time and will to further dissect your nonsense, here are my thoughts on the other championship level role players.

Ronny Turiaf. Your description:"ood enough to get GSW's mid-level exception and continually improve. Often named one of the most under rated players in the NBA. 12/8.6/54% is awesome production for a guy getting 15-20 MPG and brought mad energy. His production declined after that peak though and they let him go. On GSW his FG% is back over 50% now."

Posted a PER of 15.5 and 15.0 in his last 2 seasons with the Lakers. Posted a PER of 14.5 with GSW. Got the contract BECAUSE he played well for the Lakers, not because he declined. They let him go because they rather signed Sasha and because he didn't deserve the MLE.

Brian Cook:"Good enough to be the key piece in a deal that got them Ariza, who's a great player. He was also good enough as a rookie to get rotation minutes on the HOF filled laker team that went to the finals. Then his game declined each year till they traded him. He was not able to settle into the Magic before Nelson went down and he was included in the trade for Rafer Alston before the deadline."

It was the stupidity of Orlando's staff rather than the tallest SG in the league's good play that got us Ariza. Started 70 games for the Lakers, shot reasonably well and posted "decent" numbers while with the P&G. Couldn't crack Orlando's rotation for a considerable period of time, shot horribly and was traded to Houston where he again didn't play. His PER went from 14-15 to 7-8 when traded. Yeah, Kobe's to blame for that.

Sasha Vujacic:"What more do you want? In 07-08 he shot 45%, 44% from 3, scored 17 ppg per 36 minutes and is positively a very above average defender. A full court pest if you will. Improved every year till the finals. Maybe if Kobe wasn't calling him She She 'The Machine' to the national media, calling him his little brother (which he hated himself viaShaq) and glaring at him every 3'rd play he would not have lost his confidence? You know he shot 92% from the line, right? As a role player, Vujacic was very good."

Nobody's arguing that he was great last season. Spent the majority of the time playing next to Kobe, to whom he practically owes his contract, since he got a ton of open looks because of that. The Machine was a nickname given to him by Stu and Joel not Bryant. And I'm also sure the injury, scattered playing time and a lot less minutes next to Kobe, while consistently bricking shots didn't have anything to do with his regression. Fact is Sasha has been poor in 4 of 5 years while in the league. 

Andrew Bynum:"Andrew Bynum - Raw out of high school but always had potential. His stats/36 minutes have always been great. He got derailed by injuries but I'm sure his star player hating on him didn't help start his career or his second dispirited come back great starts and it was seen in the results. When your star injures your knee and gets up with a pissed off look on his face, says nothing, and walks away its not exactly encouragnig either, but perhaps that looked worse then it was."

Kobe didn't hate on Andrew. He wanted help and shipping him out would've landed Kidd. It would've been a horrible trade in retrospect, but that's why Kobe isn't the GM. Out of all the players Bynum is one of those who benefitted immensely playing next to Kobe and I'm sure it'll only get better as he gets back to his pre-injury form. I'm not exactly sure why he's even mentioned here. I thought you were only pointing out players who produce and then decline or get pissed off with Kobe or vice versa, I'm not even sure anymore.

Kwame Brown. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, albeit being a above average man to man defender. Couldn't crack one of the league's worst team's rotations after being traded.

Smush Parker:"Great athlete. The guy had ups. All young prospects have downs, but man he could get up. Undeniable potential and shot a very respectable 44% in LA. No superstar but a very decent role player with heaps of potential. By year 2 his game started slipping and you could watch confidence peel off of him by the game. If Kobe spent more time building Smush up what could he have been? Parker has publicly stated that Kobe made his time on LA miserable despite him putting up good numbers."

Oh boy, you can't make this up.:rofl: He was such an undeniable talent that he went undrafted, played in the D-League and changed 3 teams in 2 years before joining the Lakers. Started 162 games as LA's point guard, posting career highs in every single category. Couldn't crack the league's worst rotation when signed by Miami and is now out of the league. Oh what could've been.

And since I know you won't bother to reply (just like you didn't before), I'll kindly ask you to stop posting one more time. This is borderline ridiculous. I mean, at least do your research and try to come off as objective if you want to be taken seriously. Fabricating stories, making up stuff and posting disingenuous analysis isn't the way to go.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

Sometimes even the better player has to learn a few tricks from the lesser one.




Q. Lastly, is there a compare and contrast between Kobe’s foot work and Michael Jordan’s?

PHIL JACKSON: Well, I’ve told this story before, but my offices, when I was first head coach of the Bulls, were just ten feet off the apron of the basketball court. *One day I came out, and Michael Jordan was learning from Scottie Pippen foot work from a corner sequence that we used because Scottie could make the foot work and dunk with his left hand, and Michael always envied that.* So they were working prior to practice on how to get that done with foot work that was necessary.
That impressed me. They were both young at the time, and Scottie just had a real talent for those. Both of those guys were great teachers with those teams in developing foot work not only for themselves, but for their teammates.


http://lakers.freedomblogging.com/2009/ ... iew/18295/


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Nice post PM. Too bad he will ignore all of your points and pick out one small detail and twist it. You watch.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> ^ Pretty much everyone has made a solid argument against your article, e-wimp.


Except no one really has. They've stated a dislike for it, and like, said its 'stupid' but no one has given a reason why it's wrong or poor at all. Where is that post? Look at your own response. Again, a baseless conjecture without a single reference to anything factual. People have made arguments against the stat such as "no man, the triangle reduces assists" when the number of assists does not affect this stat at all.

If everyone's made a solid argument against my stat it should be very simple to show me that, right? So stop talking about it and show me.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> Except no one really has. They've stated a dislike for it, and like, said its 'stupid' but no one has given a reason why it's wrong or poor at all. Where is that post? Look at your own response. Again, a baseless conjecture without a single reference to anything factual. People have made arguments against the stat such as "no man, the triangle reduces assists" when the number of assists does not affect this stat at all.
> 
> If everyone's made a solid argument against my stat it should be very simple to show me that, right? So stop talking about it and show me.


Here, here, here, here, and here. 

Until you answer those questions about the stat, which you _don't_ address in the article (you couldn't point out where you address them in your article if your life depended on it), then people will continue to laugh at your posts.


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> Ariza before coming to LA - 3 point FGs: 4/33. After coming to LA - RS: 61/191; Playoffs: 40/84 => total - 101/275.
> 
> ""I used it like it was the Bible," Ariza said.
> 
> What we were talking about was the shooting-practice program given to Ariza entering the summer before this season by one Kobe Bryant.
> 
> The meaning of the gesture to Ariza – and its net effect in transforming his jump shot and thus this Lakers championship team – make it the quintessence of the latter-day Bryant as a teammate. "
> 
> Trevor Ariza was never better than he was on the Lakers. He was a solid defender with a lot of athleticism who would ride the pine and wasn't allowed to shoot. Strike one.


Trevor Ariza did not play anything close to a full season since his rookie season 4 years ago. He shot a better percentage and had better or equal per game and per 36 numbers in Orlando. WTF do you want me to say? You're just dead wrong.



> Gasol was 0-12 in the Playoffs before coming to LA. While agree that he was already an All Star caliber player, there's a reason his efficiency has risen considerably while in LA. His FG went up by 6% over his career average, his previous career high in TS% was .594 and he posted a TS% of .639 and .617 while teamed with Kobe. His offensive rating went from mid-110s to 128 and 126 (good for league's best) and 126. He also made the 3rd All-NBA team. Yeah, Gasol didn't improve whatsoever and I'm sure he's not one of the biggest beneficiaries of defenses focusing on Bryant. Strike two.


Gasol was the 'only' star on his 3 50 win teams. Its normal for players to improve as they get to their prime. Gasol has averaged less points, rebounds, half the blocks in more minutes on LA. His percentage has gone up a bit, but not a great deal. He was already a great player before he showed up in LA. That's not taking a guy who's not really able to contribute much and turning him into a solid player, its a guy not being the sole focus of the defense anymore so he's having an easier time scoring.

You bring up his playoff record and could not be any more disingenuous. The West was STACKED when they made the playoffs. They lost to the defending world champion spurs of 57 wins, the 62 win Suns who made the west finals, and the 60 win mavs who beat those spurs between titles and made the finals.

Gasol was already an incredible player when he got to LA. You are dead wrong.



> Wait, aren't you advocating the usage of per 36 minutes?
> 
> Powell per 36 minutes:
> LA - 12.8/9/1.4 on 44% shooting
> GSW - 10.4/9.7/1.4 on 46% shooting.
> 
> Just as a thought, a considerably better line posted in GS. Strike three.


Are you kidding me? Plastic Man, you're just going to flat out lie to try and win an argument? What a [email protected] disgrace you are.

Josh Powell's *ACTUAL* GSW #'s.

13.0/8.6/2.2/1.5blk/.6stl on 52% FG%. I suppose you can argue the .4 rebounds. Holy crap, you are talking about Josh Powell as one of the best examples of who Kobe has actually made better. Josh freaking Powell. Do you know how shallow the barrel is when when you're reaching down and scraping up Josh Powell to argue anything at all? Good freaking lord Plastic Man, you didn't even do that. He only just got there as well totally disqualifying him from any contention of people responding and giving up anyway. Good freaking lord. You scraped him up and had to LIE about him to even make a point!!! ;0

Josh Powell: you are dead wrong.



> He had a PER of 15 and also played solid in the Playoffs, which actually means he's been here for 39 games. Was a poor shooter prior to joining LA and is now a legit three point threat. Should only get better since he's been trusted to play a lot more than he has (played 1 whole minute for Cleveland in their run to the Finals; in contrast to over 10 minutes per game this year in the Playoffs).


Really, a rookie didn't get minutes in the playoffs? Thats your argument? Kobe improves guys because a dude who didn't get minutes in the playoffs was experimented with by Jackson against the weaker opponents and got some scrub minutes? I like Brown, I think he's got a future in the league, but he's not an example of a player Kobe made better or who sustained any progress at all.



> Really? Of the 4 mentioned two are more than solid contributers, directly benefiting from Kobe. The other 2 are role players who were solid in what they were asked to do and at least 1 of them promises to get better because he's got new confidence and trust (Brown).


Well, since you've been dead wrong and had to lie to attempt to make your above statement true, no, thats not true.



> Jordan did not make Pippen. I've heard a lot of things that Jordan did, but this has to be the first. Unlike you, I'm sure Pip benefited from playing with one of the best ever and learned a lot from him, but it's not like Jordan taught him to play all World defense and run the point.
> 
> Why would he say something that isn't true? Or is in fact a lie.


Heh, you obviously didn't watch Pippen play and progress over years did you. When he got there he had lots of potential but it was raw as can be. Jordan took the guy under his wing and made him a superstar. Just because Phil Jackson has some anecdote about a footwork drill has no bearing on that. Christ. I never said he had no talent but that his skills were weak and raw. A footwork trick does not change that.



> Since I have the time and will to further dissect your nonsense, here are my thoughts on the other championship level role players.
> 
> Ronny Turiaf. Your description:"ood enough to get GSW's mid-level exception and continually improve. Often named one of the most under rated players in the NBA. 12/8.6/54% is awesome production for a guy getting 15-20 MPG and brought mad energy. His production declined after that peak though and they let him go. On GSW his FG% is back over 50% now.
> 
> Posted a PER of 15.5 and 15.0 in his last 2 seasons with the Lakers. Posted a PER of 14.5 with GSW. Got the contract BECAUSE he played well for the Lakers, not because he declined. They let him go because they rather signed Sasha and because he didn't deserve the MLE.


Menh to it all. He didn't suck which was the point I was making. His shooting still declined in his third year in the league as did lots of his other stats. So basically the guy was decent and declined in the lakers instead of continuing to grow. His blocks/dimes/boards/FG% are all up in GS (and turnovers down). His per is down only because they're asking him to shoot less, so I'm not really sure what the relevancy is.



> Brian Cook:"Good enough to be the key piece in a deal that got them Ariza, who's a great player. He was also good enough as a rookie to get rotation minutes on the HOF filled laker team that went to the finals. Then his game declined each year till they traded him. He was not able to settle into the Magic before Nelson went down and he was included in the trade for Rafer Alston before the deadline."
> 
> It was the stupidity of Orlando's staff rather than the tallest SG in the league's good play that got us Ariza. Started 70 games for the Lakers, shot reasonably well and posted "decent" numbers while with the P&G. Couldn't crack Orlando's rotation for a considerable period of time, shot horribly and was traded to Houston where he again didn't play. His PER went from 14-15 to 7-8 when traded. Yeah, Kobe's to blame for that.


They traded him to HOU to make the deal for Alston work after Nelson got hurt, not because he was horrible. That's obvious. You're not even attempting to talk about these guys accurately. Sheesh. He was in Orlando and managed to shoot 44% from 3 while trying to get acclimated to their system and then was used to make the salaries work in the Alston deal which was made to better their playoff run, not to get rid of Brian Cook.



> Sasha Vujacic:"What more do you want? In 07-08 he shot 45%, 44% from 3, scored 17 ppg per 36 minutes and is positively a very above average defender. A full court pest if you will. Improved every year till the finals. Maybe if Kobe wasn't calling him She She 'The Machine' to the national media, calling him his little brother (which he hated himself viaShaq) and glaring at him every 3'rd play he would not have lost his confidence? You know he shot 92% from the line, right? As a role player, Vujacic was very good."
> 
> Nobody's arguing that he was great last season. Spent the majority of the time playing next to Kobe, to whom he practically owes his contract, since he got a ton of open looks because of that. The Machine was a nickname given to him by Stu and Joel not Bryant. And I'm also sure the injury, scattered playing time and a lot less minutes next to Kobe, while consistently bricking shots didn't have anything to do with his regression. Fact is Sasha has been poor in 4 of 5 years while in the league.


Sasha is a great defender and role player. His minutes went down what, 1/game? He showed serious, legitimate ability to be a solid role player last season. This season???



> Andrew Bynum:"Andrew Bynum - Raw out of high school but always had potential. His stats/36 minutes have always been great. He got derailed by injuries but I'm sure his star player hating on him didn't help start his career or his second dispirited come back great starts and it was seen in the results. When your star injures your knee and gets up with a pissed off look on his face, says nothing, and walks away its not exactly encouragnig either, but perhaps that looked worse then it was."
> 
> Kobe didn't hate on Andrew. He wanted help and shipping him out would've landed Kidd. It would've been a horrible trade in retrospect, but that's why Kobe isn't the GM. Out of all the players Bynum is one of those who benefitted immensely playing next to Kobe and I'm sure it'll only get better as he gets back to his pre-injury form. I'm not exactly sure why he's even mentioned here. I thought you were only pointing out players who produce and then decline or get pissed off with Kobe or vice versa, I'm not even sure anymore.


Yea, saying he sucks in a parking lot to random people and telling everyone on national radio you disagreed with management (when its obvious thats the move he's talking about) is not hating on a guy. come on.



> Kwame Brown. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, albeit being a above average man to man defender. Couldn't crack one of the league's worst team's rotations after being traded.


Dude, the Griz wanted the rights to Marc Gasol as the guy in that trade. Kwame played 15 games at the end of the season for them which is nothing to base any opinion on. They never had an intention of him playing more. He signed in Detroit and his numbers are rising against.



> Smush Parker:"Great athlete. The guy had ups. All young prospects have downs, but man he could get up. Undeniable potential and shot a very respectable 44% in LA. No superstar but a very decent role player with heaps of potential. By year 2 his game started slipping and you could watch confidence peel off of him by the game. If Kobe spent more time building Smush up what could he have been? Parker has publicly stated that Kobe made his time on LA miserable despite him putting up good numbers."
> 
> Oh boy, you can't make this up.:rofl: He was such an undeniable talent that he went undrafted, played in the D-League and changed 3 teams in 2 years before joining the Lakers. Started 162 games as LA's point guard, posting career highs in every single category. Couldn't crack the league's worst rotation when signed by Miami and is now out of the league. Oh what could've been.


He played 9 games in Miami. You're basing all your opinions here on 9 games, 15 games, 21 games production that players had after a mid-season trade. Its just garbage.



> And since I know you won't bother to reply (just like you didn't before), I'll kindly ask you to stop posting one more time. This is borderline ridiculous. I mean, at least do your research and try to come off as objective if you want to be taken seriously. Fabricating stories, making up stuff and posting disingenuous analysis isn't the way to go.


I didn't before? To what... news to me. Did you post a thread where you blatantly lied before that I missed? You're going to sit there and tell me I didn't do my research after posting false information like its the truth? Or stating that Pau went 0-12 vs the very best teams in the NBA like its a failure when his team had 0 stars arond him and he was what, 23? Or you're gonna get all on me about veracity when you're taking a guy like Smush, who I only said had potential to be more, and saying it was all trash because in 9 solitary games he didn't fit in and become an allstar and then had trobule being signed as a 27 year old guy who was a year away and who's game was based on explosiveness.

Either way, I never stated these guys were all stars, I stated they were decent role players. If Tim Duncan can win with Jarren Jackson, and not just win, but dominate, I'm going to suggest that yes, Kobe can win with Sasha Vujacic. If Jordan can win and be a title contender with Sam Vincent, a career scrub, as his second best player, then yes, Kobe can do a little better then 3 games under .500 when he's got a team full of potential and/or guys who CAN contribute to winning instead of take away from it. Anyway, get back to me and try to show a little dignity this time without posting falsehoods.

You're owned. I'm out!


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> Here, here, here, here, and here.
> 
> Until you answer those questions about the stat, which you _don't_ address in the article (you couldn't point out where you address them in your article if your life depended on it), then people will continue to laugh at your posts.


heh, half of that 'is' in the article, I did respond to you on a few of them and the other half is because you don't understand the stat. I'll get back to you in a bit... gots to get a goin. You stans are rich.


----------



## indiefan23

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Nice post PM. Too bad he will ignore all of your points and pick out one small detail and twist it. You watch.


Posting false stats, basing entire opinions of players on 9, 15 and 21 game stretches after mid-season trades and stating Gasol improved because his team with 0 stars couldn't beat NBA finalists are not small details Bart. I've responded to nearly every post in this sill thread, mostly by people who didn't even bother to take 10 minutes and read the article. You need to STFU.


----------



## Game3525

Indie really needs to take college composition over again. Not only does his "stat" tells us nothing, but his article is poorly written and organized. The fact that Kobe's teams have a winning percenatage when he goes for 40+ basically destroys his whole arguement, that is if he truly had one.


----------



## Luke

Game3525 said:


> Wow, yet Smush had career highs in points, min, assist in his two year stint in LA, yeah some regression.


Then why did he have his two highest PPG and APG in his two year tenure with the Lakers? You're really reaching now.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> 26 ppg is not one of the best scorers ever. Lebron demolishes Kobe when you consider their drop in dimes. I think you're missing the point. Kobe is talented, and one of the most talented in the league by far. I'm not saying he's untaletned, I'm saying his scoring is over rated. It is.


how many players have averaged 26 ppg over a 9 year period? thx.

now, you haven't addressed any of the questions i asked. i'll assume you can't i guess.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Then why did he have his two highest PPG and APG in his two year tenure with the Lakers? You're really reaching now.


Uh, because he got more minutes? Per 36 he posted better numbers in Cleveland anyway. Soo... yea, you are not correct.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> how many players have averaged 26 ppg over a 9 year period? thx.
> 
> now, you haven't addressed any of the questions i asked. i'll assume you can't i guess.


Umm... a whole bunch? Off the top of my head, Iverson, 'Nique' Jordan, Kareem, Wilt Pettit, West, Baylor, Barry, Gervin, Lebron almost certinly will have at year 9 baring injury, Jordan, 

Which questions have you asked that I did not address... please point them out if you're so sure I've avoided you, which I have not.

What relevance does that have to my stat in any way, at all??? I'm not claiming Kobe did not score a lot of points, I actually state the exact opposite. Maybe if you read the article you would not spend your time pointing out the irrelevant?


----------



## Game3525

Actually Smush's per 36 in Cleveland is basically on par with his normal stats in LA. He averaged only 2 more points per a game, and shot 4% points lower then what he did in LA, if anything he became a more efficient player in LA then anywhere else in his career.


----------



## Game3525

I love how Indie calls Kobe a ballhog, yet his teams have a huge winning percentage when he goes off. So really I ask, what is the point of this article?


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> A bunch of crap cut short


The only thing before putting you on ignore, I won't bother responding to the rest of your nonsense.

I AM SORRY FOR MISTAKING JOSH POWELL'S LAC STATS FOR THOSE WITH GSW.

Btw, the guy played a whooping 30 games for the Warriors and a total 289 minutes. Talk about being disengenious.

bbye.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Uh, because he got more minutes? Per 36 he posted better numbers in Cleveland anyway. Soo... yea, you are not correct.


Actually, Smush did average his career highs in PPG and APG with the Lakers Soo... yeah, I am correct.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue now, is it that Kobe doesn't make his teammates better?


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Game3525 said:


> I love how Indie calls Kobe a ballhog, yet his teams have a huge winning percentage when he goes off. So really I ask, what is the point of this article?


That winning is less important than sharing the ball with your teammates. Duh.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... a whole bunch? Off the top of my head, Iverson, 'Nique' Jordan, Kareem, Wilt Pettit, West, Baylor, Barry, Gervin, Lebron almost certinly will have at year 9 baring injury, Jordan,
> 
> Which questions have you asked that I did not address... please point them out if you're so sure I've avoided you, which I have not.
> 
> What relevance does that have to my stat in any way, at all??? I'm not claiming Kobe did not score a lot of points, I actually state the exact opposite. Maybe if you read the article you would not spend your time pointing out the irrelevant?


the question was did kobe play well in the 96 games in your "study"? and how does your stat answer that question? 96 games you're using to illustrate something. how well did he play in those games? 46, 6, 4, 62%, 68% win %.

how well did he play in his 8 55+ games? 

and did kobe play better in '05 or '06? you seem to imply '05 because you used that as the comparison for '06 when he got "selfish". 

and those guys, off the top of your head, are among the great scorers ever. and pace adjusted, kobe's 26 stands up pretty well. of course, that's again ignoring the 96 40+ games. and you made the point that it was the 96 that were why people thought he was great. take those away, and you have a 26 ppg scorer for 9 years. and that's not great? again, ignoring 96 games. what you said were "facts", were not facts at all.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> Here, here, here, here, and here.
> 
> Until you answer those questions about the stat, which you _don't_ address in the article (you couldn't point out where you address them in your article if your life depended on it), then people will continue to laugh at your posts.


I don't get you at all. You posted 5 links asking questions that I've answered in the article or even multiple time here, or in both. Moronic questins like this one:



> Which means your stat shows, er, what exactly? Kobe Bryant is sometimes selfish and hogs the ball, welcome to the 21st century; but since his 40+ games consistently lead to higher winning percentages for his teams, no matter how "selfish" the act, the end result benefits the team.


This one:



> WTH? You think Kobe Bryant should have 8+ NBA championships by age 30?
> 
> Yeah, at this point I'm almost certain you're stealth trolling, so unless you can answer kflo's questions and explain how Bryant's teams consistently win more often when he scores 40+ throughout his career, then your article will continue to be bunk.


are already addressed. I wrote like, 1000 or more words breaking down how Kobe's biggest scoring nights are against bottom feeder teams that they should be beating anyway. Just because you didn't read it does not mean it wasn't addressed.

What about this:



> it is undeniable that Smush Parker, Tierre Brown, Chris Mihm, Kwame Brown, Chucky Atkins, etc. were are terrible role players, and the fact that you think Bryant should have won 50-55 games with those squads shows you're not very well informed.


I gave a detailed analysis. I think its moronic to say that a role player who shoots 60% for an entire season with less turnovers then Shaq ever had in his entire career is terrible, but that's just me. Or a guard who shoots 45% for that matter. Or the fact that you left off Luke Walton, Sasha Vujacic, Ronny Turief, Jordan Farmar, Andrew Bynum, Caron Butler, Devean George and Lamar Freaking Odom. Having no team around you is what Jordan had when Scotti Pippen was getting 22 minutes a game, his second best player was career scrub Sam Vincent and his third leading scorer was 'good defensive guy' Charles Oakley. They won 50 games and were dark horse title contenders. Then there's this gem:



> WTH? You think Kobe Bryant should have 8+ NBA championships by age 30?


Lets see, if he keeps the team that won 3 straight and mad the finals 4/5 years togehter, and doesn't shoot them out of the finals like in 2004, yea, he's got a shot at 8. He had 3 at waht, age 22 or 23?? And for the record, I said 6-8, not 8+. Its totally reasonable. Holy crap. He 'should' have 5 right now, I put a low end on it and said 6 as Shaq won another one with Wade. Its stupid to argue he couldn't.



> again, in the 96 games, he averaged 46 ppg, 4 apg, 6 rpg, 63% ts%, 68% win %. again, did he play well in those games?
> 
> and again, if you remove those 96 games, you're still left with 26 ppg, 5.5 apg, 5.9 rpg, 55% ts%. still one of the great scorers ever. that's removing over a seasons worth of games at 46 ppg.
> 
> so again, you have a stat that looks at his best 96 games. did he play well in those games, and how does your stat address that? you haven't answered the question. i'm not sure what you're answering.
> 
> you're looking at those 96 games. how well did he play? if that's going to be your focus, and not the other 600+ games, how well did he play?


Umm... I just wrote a 5-6000k article detailing how I thought he played. Did he play well in those games? Not nearly as well as it looks when you're only looking at PPG. I look at those 96 games because without them Kobe is no way considered one of the best scorers ever. I think those games are highly over rated and would be common place if people were padding stats the way he was. But again, I've already stated this Stan.



> A bunch of statements not saying much in the third link, most of which I address in the article or have been addressing routinely in the thread, followed by something about Chucky Atkins starting


Chucky Atkins shot 43% scoring 13.6 with 4.4 dimes for one year. Its not 'fantastic' nor did he have to be because he had Kobe, Lamar and Butler on his team.



> - Chris Mihm: No longer in the league and might retire due to multiple ankle surgeries. Never posted a PER higher than 15.7 during his entire career. This motherf*cker started 136 games for the Lakers between the 04-07 period in question. One hundred, and thirty six. Terrible hands, made some impressive strides for his limited skillset, but still the prototypical white boy dunce.


Except when he posted 16.2. Christ, 15.7 PER is above average as well. Thanks for making my point for me. Terrible hands yet less TOV/36 then Shaq had in his whole career, shot over 50% the years he wasn't hurt. 14/10 are NOT bad /36 numbers for a guy getting 25 mpg. Mihm is not Shaq, but he's not a horrible role player.



> Well of course, for one, Butler was not by any stretch of the imagination an All Star caliber player in 04-05, and in the 03-04 season he's referring to where they "almost" (not really) got to the East Finals, Butler in fact had the worst season of his career, posting a 10.7 PER and being injured most of the season. Of course, no mention is made of that fact in the article, or how it contradicts the notion that Bryant's style in any way contributed to Caron's lack of success. No mention either that Eddie Jones and Brian Grant were instrumental in the Heat's success in the East, players the Lakers did not have in 04-05.


Heh, yea, playing hurt hurts your PER. He was right by the playoffs and did fine posting 12/8.5 in only his second season. It was obvious Butler was a really good player even before he got to LA. Eddie Jones was not 'instrumental' in their success. Wade and Butler spent half the season injured so he filled in scoring while they were out and when they were back Wade took over the team. It was obvious it belonged to their young core. By the playoffs both players were filling roles and playing defense. And the wunder kid here does not even know his own team because Brian Grant DID come over in the Shaq trade.



> But mean really now, the list of crap spewed from this trash article really is quite impressive. I'd spend more time ripping the rest to shreds, but honestly, I won't unless the kid who wrote this article comes back for more. I didn't even get to the good stuff, where he pimps bums like Brian Cook, lovingly called "Puppy Crap" by a local L.A. radio host.


Lamar flourished when Bynum got hurt and LA put him, Gasol, Kobe Ariza and Fisher on the floor. Unquestionably their best lineup all season. Odom was not good coming off the bench at all. Gasol is better then Odom IMHO, but I really fail to see how it makes him suck.

Oh, it continues with people who don't knwo what they are talking about.



> Except cumulative stats are limited by circumstances, and your stats are limited in sample size and scope, and you even list the fact that when Bryant scores 40+ ppg his team's winning % increases substantially. The point of the game is to outscore your opponent, so regardless of how its done, if scoring 40+ improves team winning %'s, it's within reason to note that he has accomplished that ultimate goal. Equating points with assists the way you are and drawing the conclusion that Bryant is selfish isn't actually proven the stat, which is bunk in the first place since the end goal, as you admit, is achieved (winning games). You don't even give an explanation for how Bryant's team continues to win at a higher rate when he posts 40+ points (of course, I'm not suggesting they're better off when he scores 40+, only that it certainly isn't anywhere near the consistently selfish act you claim it is).


Except the scope is >40 point games, and the sample size is perfectly fine for that dataset. And I totally adressed the weak competition in th earticle.

I'm sorry, when people make comments that totally reflet they didn't read the article, why should I reply again? He says "You don't even give an explanation for how Bryant's team continues to win at a higher rate when he posts 40+ points" when I had an 1k words addressing it. Sorry if I don't reply to people who don't deserve it, and I'm starting to think you'r ein that category...



> Who says assists and FG% rise together and what are you basing that on? With the Lakers, for example, Bryant averaged the most assists of his career in 04-05, 6.0 apg, yet also had the lowest FG% of his career as a starter in 04-05. The whole concept of an assist changes drastically year-to-year and depending on the system. You can't isolate that variable for Bryant or Wade or most other players because they have changed coaches, systems, and most importantly the quality of the talent around them frequently during their careers.
> 
> and another winner said:
> 
> Bingo, I can give you the prefect example of that. Allen Iverson. AI assist numbers began to climb in the 6-7 range the minute Larry Brown and Eric Snow left town. The difference wasn't AI being less selfish, but a new offensive system that moved him into lead guard. You are 100% right on the money on this Cap.
> 
> Plus, AI shot only 42% and averaged his most assist in his career with 8 APG.


Except, like most things, you guys are just guessing. Which is it? Is my scope and sample size horrible? Then why are you taking 3 averages and using it to generate a trend? Its a horrible sample of actual game results in a meaningless scope.

When you don't guess at things though, you'll see that Iverson's assists when shooting follow th trend.

>50%: 6.14 dimes
>60%: 6.74 dimes
>70%: 7.4 dimes

Heres a little chart I made for you just so you can see it visually. Mabye you guys read picture books in highscool and need visual stimulation???










And with that, this will be the last post I take to go in depth with someone who's only goal is trying to nay say my stat or homer Kobe. I'm actually happy Kobe finally won without Shaq... maybe the pressure is off him now and he won't act out. Is the NBA better if Kobe is playing his best ball and contending, yes, it is, so I'm all for it. I'm not a huge fan but I'm not going to besmirch someone's success. I will however call out you losers who have to lie about stats and mis represent everything you talk about. As if. I said Kobe has never really taken a mediocre player and made him better and some loser came back with "na ah! Shannon Brown and Josh Powel have improved" when they've only been there for 18/whatever games and actually both played better elsewhere. Its just such a steaming loaded pile of crap you put everywhere to prop this guy up. And you do dump everywhere, even on your own team and players. With fan support like that no wonder your role players lost their confidence. That used to be New York guys, but now LA has taken it's place. Congrats!


----------



## Plastic Man

kflo said:


> the question was did kobe play well in the 96 games in your "study"? and how does your stat answer that question? 96 games you're using to illustrate something. how well did he play in those games? 46, 6, 4, 62%, 68% win %.
> 
> how well did he play in his 8 55+ games?
> 
> and did kobe play better in '05 or '06? you seem to imply '05 because you used that as the comparison for '06 when he got "selfish".
> 
> and those guys, off the top of your head, are among the great scorers ever. and pace adjusted, kobe's 26 stands up pretty well. of course, that's again ignoring the 96 40+ games. and you made the point that it was the 96 that were why people thought he was great. take those away, and you have a 26 ppg scorer for 9 years. and that's not great? again, ignoring 96 games. what you said were "facts", were not facts at all.


We should all probably just let it go. Not only is the guy clueless, he lacks logic and factual interpretation. I sure hope he doesn't quit his day job for this.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> the question was did kobe play well in the 96 games in your "study"? and how does your stat answer that question? 96 games you're using to illustrate something. how well did he play in those games? 46, 6, 4, 62%, 68% win %.
> 
> how well did he play in his 8 55+ games?
> 
> and did kobe play better in '05 or '06? you seem to imply '05 because you used that as the comparison for '06 when he got "selfish".
> 
> and those guys, off the top of your head, are among the great scorers ever. and pace adjusted, kobe's 26 stands up pretty well. of course, that's again ignoring the 96 40+ games. and you made the point that it was the 96 that were why people thought he was great. take those away, and you have a 26 ppg scorer for 9 years. and that's not great? again, ignoring 96 games. what you said were "facts", were not facts at all.


When did I ever say Kobe was not a great scorer? Like, I stated the exact opposite. The very first conclusion I stated:

1. Kobe has a crap load of high scoring games in only a few seasons. He can really put it in the hoop at high volumes. 26 ppg is impressive and I'm cool with that. But scoring points at the expense of your team and getting them at the expense of the dregs of the NBA I'm just not a fan of.


----------



## kflo

you still didn't answer the question. 

you say at the expense of your team, but offer nothing to support it. DID HE PLAY WELL IN THOSE 96 GAMES? HOW DOES YOUR STAT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION? 

better in '05 or '06? 

26 ppg was excluding the 96. and yet you said it was the 96 that was why people thought he was great. i showed that excluding the 96 you're still left with a great player. so, we have a great player excluding the 96. so, did he play well in the 96? did he? i can't get an answer on that. 

c'mon, you should be able to answer this. you based an entire stat on his 96 games, but can't tell me if he played well in those games? 96 games, 46 pts, 6 reb, 4 ast, 62% ts%, 68% win %. good?


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> We should all probably just let it go. Not only is the guy clueless, he lacks logic and factual interpretation. I sure hope he doesn't quit his day job for this.


My day job? You mean computer science, using databases and algorithms to solve complex real world problems? That 'is' my day job.

And you're one to talk Plastic Man. You lied about stats to support your case. You are no longer Plastic Man, for I now name you Captain Veracity!

So Captain Veracity, when you lied about the numbers because you had no argument but could not accept the ownage (you were actually trying to claim Josh Powell as a player Kobe made into a solid contributor! Josh Freaking Powell) did you really think it was wise to try an rip on someone else for research, when you had obviously done none?


----------



## Jamel Irief

indiefan23 said:


> I gave a detailed analysis. I think its moronic to say that a role player who shoots 60% for an entire season with less turnovers then Shaq ever had in his entire career is terrible, but that's just me.


Dave Corzine- 10.1 pts, 6.6 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 48% fg, 1.4 turnovers in 29.1 minutes
Kwame Brown- 8.4 pts, 6.0 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 59% fg, 1.9 turnovers in 27.6 minutes

Kobe would kill to have Corzine over Kwame!



> Or a guard who shoots 45% for that matter.


John Paxson- 49% shooting in 87-88
"career scrub" Sam Vincent- 45% that same year



> Having no team around you is what Jordan had when Scotti Pippen was getting 22 minutes a game, his second best player was career scrub Sam Vincent and his third leading scorer was 'good defensive guy' Charles Oakley.


Would you rather have Oakley or Smush Parker as your 3rd scorer? And Oakley was the second best player. Hell most experts will tell you Oakley was a better player than the modern Odom back then. I would disagree, but that would be the consensus. He was a all-star.

I think it's funny Sam Vincent is a career scrub, but Kwame Brown is not because he turns the ball over less than Shaq. Kwame, Smush, Brian Cook and Sasha would all love to have a career like Sam Vincent. 

It's become obvious if you aren't the Kobe hater you are the Jordan homer?


----------



## Game3525

Jamel Irief said:


> Dave Corzine- 10.1 pts, 6.6 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 48% fg, 1.4 turnovers in 29.1 minutes
> Kwame Brown- 8.4 pts, 6.0 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 59% fg, 1.9 turnovers in 27.6 minutes
> 
> Kobe would kill to have Corzine over Kwame!
> 
> 
> 
> John Paxson- 49% shooting in 87-88
> "career scrub" Sam Vincent- 45% that same year
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Oakley or Smush Parker as your 3rd scorer? And Oakley was the second best player. Hell most experts will tell you Oakley was a better player than the modern Odom back then. I would disagree, but that would be the consensus. He was a all-star.
> 
> I think it's funny Sam Vincent is a career scrub, but Kwame Brown is not because he turns the ball over less than Shaq. Kwame, Smush, Brian Cook and Sasha would all love to have a career like Sam Vincent.
> 
> It's become obvious if you aren't the Kobe hater you are the *Jordan homer*?


Should have been obivous with the number 23 at the end of his username.


----------



## kflo

> Umm... I just wrote a 5-6000k article detailing how I thought he played. Did he play well in those games? Not nearly as well as it looks when you're only looking at PPG. I look at those 96 games because without them Kobe is no way considered one of the best scorers ever. I think those games are highly over rated and would be common place if people were padding stats the way he was. But again, I've already stated this Stan.


again, without those 96 games you have one of the great scorers in history. remove over a seasons worth of games at 46 ppg, and you still have a dominant player and scorer. of course, it makes no sense to not include those games.

when discussing his comp in those games, how many did you focus on? did he play well in those games? 

i simply cannot fathom how someone could actually argue that kobe ISN'T one of the best scorers ever. yet you seem to think it's only because he focused on doing so whereas others didn't. tell me, what's an equivalent line to 46, 6 and 4, 62%? what is the equivalent for someone playing "team ball"? 

and did kobe play better in '05 or '06?

fact is, kobe has been a relatively efficient bulk scorer with a well rounded game. sometimes he pushes his scoring. other times he doesn't. you give jordan a pass because he was the "goat".


----------



## indiefan23

> better in '05 or '06?
> 
> 26 ppg was excluding the 96. and yet you said it was the 96 that was why people thought he was great. i showed that excluding the 96 you're still left with a great player. so, we have a great player excluding the 96. so, did he play well in the 96? did he? i can't get an answer on that.


Without his 50+ point games (which he had against the true scrub teams of the league while not passing the rock more then anyone he's ever compared to) Kobe would not be considered half the scorer he is. Its a fact. Just watch the next time someone posts a Kobe thread and see how many two digit responses say '81' in them.



kflo said:


> you still didn't answer the question.
> 
> you say at the expense of your team, but offer nothing to support it. DID HE PLAY WELL IN THOSE 96 GAMES? HOW DOES YOUR STAT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION?


Dude, I told you already, read the No masked cursing.article. Do you honestly think I believe you're dumb enough to not know what I think? There are 5k words that are 100% about how I felt he played in those games. Its more then a yes or no answer so stop being such a moron in demanding an quickie that does not exist. I'm not going to dance as if you're honestly asking me an honest non-loaded question because you want to know my opinion.


----------



## kflo

you say he played selfishly and showed his assists went down. what we're left with is 46, 6, 4, 62%. you only focus on his assists going down. you're not focusing on the quality of his overall play in those 96 games. so stop saying read the article. there's little in there that actually addresses the quality of his play in those games. scream and curse if you will, it's not going to change that. stop saying read the article and try and articulate yourself. 

26, 5 and 6 in the other games. 46, 6 and 4 in the 96. what's the "right" statline that the 96 would translate into? 

why don't you read what other players say about the guy. not smush, but his peers. read what other coaches say about the guy. 

ok, so his 46, 6 & 4, 62% isn't as good as 46 would indicate, to you. how good is it? 

i get that you believe that his 96 40+ games in quality aren't as good as say wade's 24. that's fine. but what are you left with? you don't address that. his 62 point game against dallas - was that a good game? 0 assists. good game? 

how many games did you actually assess how well he played? or overall? any context at all? 

96 games, and you want to argue that without over a season's worth of games he wouldn't be considered the scorer he is? you want to exclude over 10% of his prime? games where you simply think he SHOULD have scored less? 

kobe scored the most points in his career when his support was the worst. and scored less as it's gotten better. and is still the most feared scorer in the league. because he's actually a great scorer. and a great player. but hey, again, you're free to argue those 96 games are support for a view that he's overrated.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kflo is killing this kid. I wish it wasn't so because the more he gets owned the more he types and the angrier he gets. It would be worth it to concede and send him on his delusional way.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> again, without those 96 games you have one of the great scorers in history. remove over a seasons worth of games at 46 ppg, and you still have a dominant player and scorer. of course, it makes no sense to not include those games.
> 
> when discussing his comp in those games, how many did you focus on? did he play well in those games?


Let me direct you to the magical land of things I already said. http://fullcourtpest.com



> i simply cannot fathom how someone could actually argue that kobe ISN'T one of the best scorers ever. yet you seem to think it's only because he focused on doing so whereas others didn't. tell me, what's an equivalent line to 46, 6 and 4, 62%? what is the equivalent for someone playing "team ball"?


Heh, well its in no way 'equivalent' but Lebron's line for his 10 best games is

51.2 PPG, 8.1 APG, 7.9 RPG 70 TS%

You're all hopped up on 'true shooting percentage' which is just a combination of free throws and FG% and is in no way an actual measruement of how you shoot from the field since shots you get fouled on don't actually count towards your attempts. So when Kobe takes 44 shots in that bobcats game all his forces where he draws a foul don't count and he's actually attempting upwards of what, 55? 60 shots? A guestimate. Forcing bad shots against double and triple teams, which Kobe has done his whole career, actually boosts your regular FG% because when you draw fouls from tough coverage you only get an attempt if you score the basket. TS% is actually a stat made to hinder the stats of players who force shots and likewise a terrible cat for Kobe. Further evidence that you don't even know the player that you're homer fanboy staning for because you keep bringing up something that he gets killed in for the very reasons I've been stating all along.

I'd like to present you with a list of the 49 NBA players who are more efficient scorers then Kobe Bryant, according to your brainiac logic, which you're about to poo poo all over in response because what you're really looking for is a way to say Kobe is awesome, instead of 'this is a fair method of evaluating him.', which is actually what I'm doing because I agree that Kobe's a fantastic scorer in the first place and have never doubted that he can put it in the hole. However, and I admit you're not quite on Captain Veracity's level where he just flat out lie and put up false numbers, but since you're dumb and trying to prove things that are not true are true... enjoy...

_*The 48 most efficient scorers in the NBA!!!!*_

1	Joel Anthony, MIA	6	14.7	.850	22.5	11.3	3.7	14.0	13.4	13.6	13.64	4.0	0.1
2	James Jones, MIA	7	33.6	.787	9.7	7.8	8.8	1.2	7.0	4.3	12.48	6.9	0.2
3	Theo Ratliff, PHI	6	15.7	.784	0.0	23.9	7.2	8.2	22.4	15.4	9.20	-2.0	-0.1
4	Bruce Bowen, SAS	5	26.0	.756	15.1	15.1	5.7	0.0	14.7	7.0	7.37	-6.1	-0.2
5	Nicolas Batum, POR	6	10.5	.667	7.7	23.1	8.3	1.8	4.4	3.0	6.12	-4.1	-0.1
6	Chauncey Billups, DEN	16	38.7	.664	28.1	8.0	19.6	1.0	11.0	5.9	22.96	110.5	3.7
7	Chris Andersen, DEN	15	21.9	.661	10.0	8.9	9.9	10.5	24.4	17.4	18.38	35.1	1.2
8	Marcin Gortat, ORL	24	11.3	.661	4.1	15.1	10.4	8.4	26.7	17.6	15.61	20.3	0.7
9	Eddie House, BOS	14	16.6	.660	12.9	6.0	15.4	1.0	9.4	5.1	17.12	21.2	0.7
10	Samuel Dalembert, PHI	6	22.2	.654	8.4	16.8	10.3	9.6	34.4	22.2	15.25	9.2	0.3
11	Rasual Butler, NOR	5	31.6	.647	2.1	12.5	11.9	2.2	9.6	5.8	10.37	-0.3	-0.0
12	Brandon Bass, DAL	10	19.2	.638	8.3	4.7	16.5	8.7	17.2	13.1	22.81	32.4	1.1
13	Dirk Nowitzki, DAL	10	39.4	.635	11.7	8.7	24.6	3.9	26.6	15.8	28.38	99.3	3.3
14	Yao Ming, HOU	9	35.9	.634	6.1	11.5	17.8	7.2	28.1	18.0	21.57	52.9	1.8
15	Dwight Howard, ORL	23	39.3	.634	9.0	14.0	19.8	13.8	35.1	24.5	25.54	201.3	6.7
16	Linas Kleiza, DEN	14	15.0	.633	8.2	2.3	14.8	4.5	21.4	12.8	18.38	24.7	0.8
17	Erick Dampier, DAL	10	25.5	.630	9.8	26.7	10.3	12.6	16.7	14.7	9.86	-2.8	-0.1
18	Mike Bibby, ATL	11	35.5	.627	24.8	12.9	17.1	1.8	11.0	6.0	15.20	24.5	0.8
19	Pau Gasol, LAL	23	40.5	.622	13.2	10.0	16.8	8.6	22.5	15.6	21.90	148.7	5.0
20	Mickael Pietrus, ORL	24	25.8	.622	5.9	9.2	14.8	3.9	8.7	6.3	13.99	32.2	1.1
21	Jason Kidd, DAL	10	38.6	.621	34.5	11.7	13.5	2.3	15.6	9.2	16.82	33.5	1.1
22	LeBron James, CLE	14	41.4	.618	18.9	7.0	33.4	4.3	23.6	14.2	37.43	233.2	7.8
23	Antoine Wright, DAL	10	16.7	.617	16.2	6.5	13.1	3.9	5.7	4.8	11.99	3.7	0.1
24	Jermaine O'Neal, MIA	6	27.0	.615	10.7	11.9	20.7	5.9	14.5	10.5	21.60	26.6	0.9
25	Steve Blake, POR	6	38.5	.614	39.3	9.6	12.8	2.0	11.9	6.5	14.97	13.7	0.5
26	Trevor Ariza, LAL	23	31.4	.610	17.7	12.5	14.5	3.6	12.0	7.8	14.70	45.3	1.5
27	Kirk Hinrich, CHI	7	30.0	.603	19.8	7.9	16.0	1.2	8.9	5.3	17.12	19.8	0.7
28	Ryan Hollins, DAL	9	9.3	.598	4.3	17.1	10.7	13.8	21.1	17.6	10.95	0.4	0.0
29	Kendrick Perkins, BOS	14	36.6	.592	10.4	17.1	13.6	11.6	26.3	18.8	16.39	44.2	1.5
30	Rudy Fernandez, POR	6	27.0	.591	11.3	17.0	12.9	1.4	12.8	6.6	11.39	2.1	0.1
31	Carlos Boozer, UTH	5	37.2	.589	9.7	13.2	21.7	7.1	34.8	20.4	20.43	24.8	0.8
32	Tony Parker, SAS	5	36.2	.588	19.2	11.9	35.4	0.6	14.1	7.0	29.37	49.6	1.7
33	Nene, DEN	16	32.8	.587	18.3	13.5	14.8	8.4	19.2	13.7	15.44	37.9	1.3
34	Lamar Odom, LAL	23	32.0	.587	13.0	12.1	15.6	10.3	23.0	16.7	18.04	71.7	2.4
35	Udonis Haslem, MIA	7	29.1	.585	5.1	10.1	12.1	8.7	27.6	18.9	15.00	10.6	0.4
36	Brad Miller, CHI	7	26.6	.585	9.8	22.9	17.6	7.3	26.1	17.2	11.93	3.7	0.1
37	Shane Battier, HOU	13	38.2	.576	22.6	10.9	9.6	5.2	9.9	7.6	11.12	4.6	0.2
38	Carl Landry, HOU	13	18.5	.574	3.0	13.8	16.9	8.2	16.7	12.6	14.46	10.6	0.4
39	Joe Smith, CLE	13	16.8	.574	4.1	9.6	13.3	6.1	21.9	14.2	14.13	8.6	0.3
40	Deron Williams, UTH	5	42.2	.574	33.1	12.9	22.9	2.1	8.5	5.2	18.80	24.6	0.8
41	Aaron Brooks, HOU	13	34.2	.573	16.7	11.0	21.4	1.1	7.8	4.5	15.55	30.1	1.0
42	Joakim Noah, CHI	7	38.7	.573	18.6	9.3	10.6	12.8	26.1	19.8	17.06	26.1	0.9
43	Dahntay Jones, DEN	16	17.5	.572	8.3	10.8	15.7	6.8	9.5	8.1	13.93	14.3	0.5
44	Greg Oden, POR	6	16.0	.571	0.0	23.3	15.2	13.3	21.5	17.0	10.96	0.5	0.0
45	Rashard Lewis, ORL	24	41.1	.570	13.5	9.6	19.1	3.7	15.7	9.7	16.92	79.8	2.7
46	Brian Scalabrine, BOS	12	20.5	.567	17.0	7.1	9.9	3.3	9.4	6.3	7.27	-15.5	-0.5
47	Dwyane Wade, MIA	7	40.7	.565	15.3	10.3	32.8	1.9	12.8	7.8	26.35	67.4	2.2
48	Carmelo Anthony, DEN	16	38.3	.564	13.3	7.6	27.9	5.0	13.3	9.1	24.36	126.6	4.2


----------



## kflo

ok, now we're arguing against ts%, which shows absolutely no understanding of scoring efficiency. but hey, you're a programmer. 

and yeah, lebron is better statistically than kobe. is that the point of your article?


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> kflo is killing this kid. I wish it wasn't so because the more he gets owned the more he types and the angrier he gets. It would be worth it to concede and send him on his delusional way.


Yea, he's killing me all right. Notice how it's only Laker fans who think that patch work? Klfo just put up a stat to 'prove' something about Kobe that the guy gets totally killed in and you think he's coming out on top. Captain Veracity had to lie about a sorry player like Josh Powell to grasp at his straw. What's your's?


----------



## Sir Patchwork

indiefan23 said:


> Yea, he's killing me all right. Notice how it's only Laker fans who think that patch work? Klfo just put up a stat to 'prove' something about Kobe that the guy gets totally killed in and you think he's coming out on top. Captain Veracity had to lie about a sorry player like Josh Powell to grasp at his straw. What's your's?


You've taught us all a lot.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> ok, now we're arguing against ts%, which shows absolutely no understanding of scoring efficiency. but hey, you're a programmer.


Yea, a real knock against my ability to comprehend large sets of data and the mathematical relationships between them in a computational context huh... ;0 and we are not arguing about TS%, you're just wrong about it and I'm pointing out what the stat means and is for.



> and yeah, lebron is better statistically than kobe. is that the point of your article?


Heh, Lebron IS better then Kobe... but that's hardly the point of the article.


----------



## Nightmute

indiefan, how 'bout offering some clarification on your article? Instead of consistently repeating, "read the article." I mean you wrote the damn thing, why not elaborate on your the points you wrote about in your article while posting?


----------



## Nightmute

indiefan23 said:


> Yea, a real knock against my ability to comprehend large sets of data and the mathematical relationships between them in a computational context huh... ;0 and we are not arguing about TS%, you're just wrong about it and I'm pointing out what the stat means and is for.


We know what the stat means, and it's one of the best stats out there for what it sets out to do. Yours on the other hand...


----------



## Nightmute

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... I disagree totally. It prevented him from winning a title in 04. It prevented him from 50 win teams after. Feuding immaturely with Shaq prevented him from winning titles or even competing with them in those years. Kobe spent his prime in mediocrity because he had to be 'the man' and couldn't wait. Having poorly developed role players and jacking shots prevented him from winning last year. How many MVP's would Kobe have if he pushed his teams to 50-55 wins over those 3 years instead of 3 games under .500 instead of scoring 35 PPG? How many would Steve Nash not have?
> 
> Do I have it in for Kobe? Not really, I have it in for talented players who put themselves before their teams and over value themselves. I don't really have it in for Kobe any more then I had it in for Marbury, Zach Randolph, Iverson or even young Shaq before he realized scoring instead of committing to anchoring the defense was hurting his team. When Kobe made an effort to balance his personal goals with his team goals in the finals this year I gave him all kinds of credit and totally express that in the article too.
> 
> Kobe is ridiculously talented and is one of the very few players who has improved himself every year he's played the game but the guy has a tragic flaw. Its okay to have a flaw, most great players do. Nash is not a great on ball defender, Amare was lazy on D and both were owned by Robert Sarver who was laziest of all on D. Shaq spent most of his career mailing in D too. KG had McHale as a GM and Glen Taylor as an owner. Jordan spent half his career trying to do too much himself too. Wade/Yao are injury prone. Grant Hill was incredibly injury prone and cared too much coming back before he was ready time after time. Dwight Howard's offensive game is raw. Larry was not the best athlete ever. Barkley was undersized for his position. Karl Malone has the IQ of a used condom. Its perfectly okay to have a tragic flaw. If the Kobe fans accepted this they'd hear WAY less criticism of Kobe as most people are not actually bashing the player, Kobe Bryant, but the wild assertions of his fans that he's obviously the best of all time, top 3 all time, the best of the decade or the best in the league. This article is really critical of Kobe's over rating instead of the player himself. Its that simple.


So you think it prevented him from being a champion, despite winning four championships?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Yea, a real knock against my ability to comprehend large sets of data and the mathematical relationships between them in a computational context huh... ;0 and we are not arguing about TS%, you're just wrong about it and I'm pointing out what the stat means and is for.


i have no idea about your "ability to comprehend large sets of data and the mathematical relationships between them in a computational context". you haven't demonstrated any though. you've used as elementary a calculation as possible. 

what exactly am i wrong about, and where did you point out what it means? ts% is the most precise measure of scoring efficiency. period. 




indiefan23 said:


> Heh, Lebron IS better then Kobe... but that's hardly the point of the article.


right.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Dave Corzine- 10.1 pts, 6.6 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 48% fg, 1.4 turnovers in 29.1 minutes
> Kwame Brown- 8.4 pts, 6.0 rbs, 1.2 blcks, 59% fg, 1.9 turnovers in 27.6 minutes
> 
> Kobe would kill to have Corzine over Kwame!


Umm... I'm no Kobe fan, but why? Kwame shoots 11% better and when you adjust for minutes is better in every single cat despite playing at a much faster pace.



> John Paxson- 49% shooting in 87-88
> "career scrub" Sam Vincent- 45% that same year


Paxon: 23 MPG. Sam: 33 mpg. My point exactly.



> Would you rather have Oakley or Smush Parker as your 3rd scorer? And Oakley was the second best player. Hell most experts will tell you Oakley was a better player than the modern Odom back then. I would disagree, but that would be the consensus. He was a all-star.


Odom is absolutely all star talent. Its not his fault the west is loaded iwth 3's and 4's. I'd rather have Odom then Oakley though I loved Oakely's toughness. I'll give you that. But a 38 year old Artis Gilmore playing 15 minutes instead of Ronny Turiaf? Butler/Odom I'll take over Oak/Vincent any day. Actually, I'd take any of Kobe's teams over that core if I didn't know what Pippen was going to become.



> I think it's funny Sam Vincent is a career scrub, but Kwame Brown is not because he turns the ball over less than Shaq.


Well, Kwame is still only 26 and has 'just' entered his prime if a guy like Kwame ever has a prime. He could still find a legit team to contribute on. I hope he does honestly.

What does this line say to you?

7.8ppg, 3.9 apg, 2.1 bpg 19 mpg



> It's become obvious if you aren't the Kobe hater you are the Jordan homer?


Hardly. Love MJ, no doubt, but he was selfish and suffered from the same Ills Kobe did. Just because someone does not like kobe does not mean they're hating on him. For the record, I've got a way bigger problem with the fans then the player. You guys get ridonkulous.


----------



## indiefan23

Nightmute said:


> indiefan, how 'bout offering some clarification on your article? Instead of consistently repeating, "read the article." I mean you wrote the damn thing, why not elaborate on your the points you wrote about in your article while posting?


Hmm... I thought I had done that quite a bit... people seem to want to discuss Josh Powell's phantom stats and TS% though. But honestly, I'd love to talk about the stat.

Really quickly it produces trends of how players perform with respect to their scoring increases. Assists are normalized as dimes at each interval of 5 points over 40 games are compared to the average over all games in the period. Those numbers are subtracted from average assists to give a differential of how the player's assist production fluctuates as scoring output changes.

Do you have a question? You've got my undivided attention.


----------



## indiefan23

Nightmute said:


> So you think it prevented him from being a champion, despite winning four championships?


My stat does not say that. It just shows Kobe's assist differential with respect to scoring output. Personally I think it provides some perspective into Kobe's methods of self-promotion in the post-Shaq era in his attempt to prove he could hang with MJ which was a stated goal of his he believed he was capable of. As I stated in the article, 6-8 rings was likely, and more were possible if he happened to land another Gasol like player after Shaq finally couldn't hang and put more effort into building his young team's chemistry instead of trying to win every game himself while they watched.

As for 4 rings... saying Kobe got those one Shaq's coat tails is a very valid statement. The West in that era was LOADED with talent at the 4 and 5 and the rules were very favorable to them. Any decent 2 guard could have won titles with Shaq because it was Shaq who neutralized and broke down the other team's and their best players. Thats not a knock on Kobe, when I say decent I mean really good top tier talent 2 guard who's a gamer, but those teams could not win with anyother then Shaq at that period in the NBA.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i have no idea about your "ability to comprehend large sets of data and the mathematical relationships between them in a computational context". you haven't demonstrated any though. you've used as elementary a calculation as possible.
> 
> what exactly am i wrong about, and where did you point out what it means? ts% is the most precise measure of scoring efficiency. period.
> 
> right.


Heh, yes, and thats why Kobe is freaking killed in it. He's 48'th in the league man and was only worse in the past.


----------



## Nightmute

indiefan23 said:


> My stat does not say that. It just shows Kobe's assist differential with respect to scoring output. Personally I think it provides some perspective into Kobe's methods of self-promotion in the post-Shaq era in his attempt to prove he could hang with MJ which was a stated goal of his he believed he was capable of. As I stated in the article, 6-8 rings was likely, and more were possible if he happened to land another Gasol like player after Shaq finally couldn't hang and put more effort into building his young team's chemistry instead of trying to win every game himself while they watched.
> 
> As for 4 rings... saying Kobe got those one Shaq's coat tails is a very valid statement. The West in that era was LOADED with talent at the 4 and 5 and the rules were very favorable to them. Any decent 2 guard could have won titles with Shaq because it was Shaq who neutralized and broke down the other team's and their best players. Thats not a knock on Kobe, when I say decent I mean really good top tier talent 2 guard who's a gamer, but those teams could not win with anyother then Shaq at that period in the NBA.


So if it was as selfish as you say and as your stat implies, why is it his team's winning percentage goes up when scoring more then 40 rather then go down? Judging by your article, seeing how you refuse to offer any sort of clarification, his selfish play cost his team wins, resulting in what you think is a disappointing career for Kobe. But the fact that Kobe's win% goes up, not down, when scoring more points, and the fact that he has been able to win a championship without really changing his style of play from say 04-05 to 07-08 is what renders your stat meaningless.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

indiefan23 said:


> Posting false stats, basing entire opinions of players on 9, 15 and 21 game stretches after mid-season trades and stating Gasol improved because his team with 0 stars couldn't beat NBA finalists are not small details Bart. I've responded to nearly every post in this sill thread, mostly by people who didn't even bother to take 10 minutes and read the article. You need to STFU.


You mad? :laugh:


----------



## Jamel Irief

indiefan23 said:


> Let me direct you to the magical land of things I already said. http://fullcourtpest.com
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, well its in no way 'equivalent' but Lebron's line for his 10 best games is
> 
> 51.2 PPG, 8.1 APG, 7.9 RPG 70 TS%
> 
> You're all hopped up on 'true shooting percentage' which is just a combination of free throws and FG% and is in no way an actual measruement of how you shoot from the field since shots you get fouled on don't actually count towards your attempts. So when Kobe takes 44 shots in that bobcats game all his forces where he draws a foul don't count and he's actually attempting upwards of what, 55? 60 shots? A guestimate. Forcing bad shots against double and triple teams, which Kobe has done his whole career, actually boosts your regular FG% because when you draw fouls from tough coverage you only get an attempt if you score the basket. TS% is actually a stat made to hinder the stats of players who force shots and likewise a terrible cat for Kobe. Further evidence that you don't even know the player that you're homer fanboy staning for because you keep bringing up something that he gets killed in for the very reasons I've been stating all along.


I read this paragraph four times, and I still think you are saying that TS% is misleading because if you throw up shots in tough coverage more often than not you will get free throw attempts. What other more efficient way to score is there than going to the free throw line?!?!?!??


----------



## Jamel Irief

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... I'm no Kobe fan, but why? Kwame shoots 11% better and when you adjust for minutes is better in every single cat despite playing at a much faster pace.


Corzine is not a scrub. 7 boards, almost two blocks and less turnovers than Shaq are not the numbers of a scrub. Jordan stans played him out to be in a scrub so they could whine about how Jordan had no help.



> Paxon: 23 MPG. Sam: 33 mpg. My point exactly.


Not sure what your point is, that they should of both been starting because they had better field goal percentages than Smush Parker, who we know was a great complementary piece?



> Odom is absolutely all star talent. Its not his fault the west is loaded iwth 3's and 4's. I'd rather have Odom then Oakley though I loved Oakely's toughness. I'll give you that. But a 38 year old Artis Gilmore playing 15 minutes instead of Ronny Turiaf? Butler/Odom I'll take over Oak/Vincent any day. Actually, I'd take any of Kobe's teams over that core if I didn't know what Pippen was going to become.


Corzine or Kwame
Sellers or Cook
Ho. Grant or Mihm
Oakley or Odom
Gilmore or Turiaf

We aren't talking a big difference in talent at all.

And I agree about Odom, but Oak was a all-star too. 



> Well, Kwame is still only 26 and has 'just' entered his prime if a guy like Kwame ever has a prime. He could still find a legit team to contribute on. I hope he does honestly.


The kid is not very good at basketball. I don't get why you trash guys like Powell and Vincent and hold out hopes for losers like Kwame. It makes no sense. 



> What does this line say to you?
> 
> 7.8ppg, 3.9 apg, 2.1 bpg 19 mpg


I have no idea? Random collection of numbers?


> Hardly. Love MJ, no doubt, but he was selfish and suffered from the same Ills Kobe did. Just because someone does not like kobe does not mean they're hating on him. For the record, I've got a way bigger problem with the fans then the player. You guys get ridonkulous.


I've only become a Kobe fan after he led our team to a title after the first time. I've talked about his faults countless times. But as a Laker fan I can't stand when people clearly have an agenda and claim objectivity.


----------



## Game3525

Sir Patchwork said:


> kflo is killing this kid. I wish it wasn't so because the more he gets owned the more he types and the angrier he gets. It would be worth it to concede and send him on his delusional way.


Kflo better be careful or he will find himself on this guys ingored list, Lmao.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You mad? :laugh:


_And you're calling other people trolls?_


Like usual you have brought nothing to this thread except accusing people who are here for legitimate discussion trolls. Sorry that the consensus is that Kobe Bryant isn't god. You'll get over it soon enough.


It's funny how people bring up guys like Parker, Atkins and Kwame, and ignore Luke Walton, Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Ronnie Turiaf when they talk about Kobe's supporting cast. 

Denial is the first step.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Prolific Scorer said:


> _And you're calling other people trolls?_
> 
> 
> Like usual you have brought nothing to this thread except accusing people who are here for legitimate discussion trolls. Sorry that the consensus is that Kobe Bryant isn't god. You'll get over it soon enough.
> 
> 
> It's funny how people bring up guys like Parker, Atkins and Kwame, and ignore Luke Walton, Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Ronnie Turiaf when they talk about Kobe's supporting cast.
> 
> Denial is the first step.


You are here for legitimate discussion? All you do is call people Kobe homers and ride the coattails of other people's arguments. You started a thread and when asked why it was a great article said your keyboard broke. 
Give me a break.

The reason people are bringing up Parker, Atkins and Kwame is because Indie is actually trying to argue that they are good starters and you should easily win 50 games on their side. No one is arguing that Walton, Odom, Butler and Turiaf aren't good at what they do.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Prolific Scorer said:


> _And you're calling other people trolls?_
> 
> 
> Like usual you have brought nothing to this thread except accusing people who are here for legitimate discussion trolls. Sorry that the consensus is that Kobe Bryant isn't god. You'll get over it soon enough.
> 
> 
> It's funny how people bring up guys like Parker, Atkins and Kwame, and ignore Luke Walton, Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Ronnie Turiaf when they talk about Kobe's supporting cast.
> 
> Denial is the first step.


You ignore points, why should I put forth time to give a logical reply? In all the time that I have posted here, I can discriminate between the posters who dislike Kobe and put forth reasoning for why they dislike him, and the haters who will simply post anything just to discredit him without any real thought behind it(you). As Jamel said, you came across an a long-winded article that had a bunch of numbers and words and decided it would be the end all proven piece that validates your hatred for Kobe. What is abundantly clear is that you do not even understand what the article says, proven by the fact that you continue to ignore challenges to prove otherwise. Even more likely, you probably just skimmed through the first paragraph or two and immediately bolted over to BBF to post it. There are posters here that have a strong dislike for Kobe that I respect, because they clearly don't have an agenda. That is obviously not the case with you. If you at any point indicated that this is not the case, I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you. But you don't even know what the damn article says. Because you have an agenda, no amount of reasoning is going to sway you to one side or another, because your mind was made up a long time ago. It's disappointing because I felt that we were all respectful towards each other after the Finals, and even the players on the teams we watch for that matter. What's funny in all of this is the fact that I have been labeled a Kobe hater multiple times on this forum. :laugh:


----------



## Game3525

Proflic is still around eh? After the way everyone has ripped him, why bother coming back?


----------



## Tragedy

Damn, dudes really been on the rag ever since the Lakers won the title. it must hurt to be a irrational Kobe Hater/Magic fan. Your team lost, take your Ls. At least last year LA fans gave the Celtics props for having such a tough defense after the series was over. It probably hurts because Kobe's been in the finals 2 years running, and four straight playoff appearances after missing the first of his career.. It must really hurt to know that it's only going to get tougher for Orlando to make it back, much less win it all, and that they may have to do it without their second best player in this years playoffs.

And lol @ that DUMB ASS? list of 48 players better than Kobe. Like anyone in their right mind would take the top five guys over Kobe. The lengths people go to to discredit Kobe Bryant or downplay his impact on the team or significance in today's NBA is outrageous. He can win more titles, or no more, and his place in NBA history is set, it can only get better from here on out, and I think that realization that he can climb the list of All Time greats, and in the end, when it's all said and done, all ridiculous criticisms will be silenced for good when his legacy is finally written. There are guys who are top 5 all time who've lost in the finals. It doesn't hurt their legacy, and 2004 and 2008 won't hurt his now that he won in 2009.


----------



## Tragedy

Game3525 said:


> Proflic is still around eh? After the way everyone has ripped him, why bother coming back?


It's like a cheap hooker. She won't leave until everyone has had a chance.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, yes, and thats why Kobe is freaking killed in it. He's 48'th in the league man and was only worse in the past.


you realize you posted playoff stats? it wasn't a giveaway that the top guys all played 7 games or less? no? 

kobe was actually 86th this year. 48th last year. 42nd the year before. 50th in '06. is that good? bad?

fwiw, jordan was 67th in '93. 46th in '96. 55th in '97. 56th in '87. 

but again, ts% as the best measure of scoring efficiency isn't really opinion. it's fact. that you're not quite there yet shows you've got some learning ahead of you. so while you figure out what you're novelty assist differential in 55+ point games means, you might want to just start with ts%.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> Damn, dudes really been on the rag ever since the Lakers won the title. it must hurt to be a irrational Kobe Hater/Magic fan. Your team lost, take your Ls. At least last year LA fans gave the Celtics props for having such a tough defense after the series was over. It probably hurts because Kobe's been in the finals 2 years running, and four straight playoff appearances after missing the first of his career.. It must really hurt to know that it's only going to get tougher for Orlando to make it back, much less win it all, and that they may have to do it without their second best player in this years playoffs.


Menh, I'm fine with the Lakers winning. They had the best team in the league and deserved it. Deserved it more then the Magic who were very lucky to come out of the east. If Yao wasn't hurt, they very likely don't win but that's sports.



> And lol @ that DUMB ASS? list of 48 players better than Kobe. Like anyone in their right mind would take the top five guys over Kobe. The lengths people go to to discredit Kobe Bryant or downplay his impact on the team or significance in today's NBA is outrageous. He can win more titles, or no more, and his place in NBA history is set, it can only get better from here on out, and I think that realization that he can climb the list of All Time greats, and in the end, when it's all said and done, all ridiculous criticisms will be silenced for good when his legacy is finally written. There are guys who are top 5 all time who've lost in the finals. It doesn't hurt their legacy, and 2004 and 2008 won't hurt his now that he won in 2009.


I lol'ed at that too as the stat the list is based on, TS%, was stated by your fellow Stans as the best indicator of scoring efficiency. I disagree though. I think spending his prime on crap teams will hurt his legacy. He'll be known as a great player but once the hype dies down he'll also be known as a guy who could have been more.


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Menh, I'm fine with the Lakers winning. They had the best team in the league and deserved it. Deserved it more then the Magic who were very lucky to come out of the east. If Yao wasn't hurt, they very likely don't win but that's sports.
> 
> 
> 
> I lol'ed at that too as the stat the list is based on, TS%, was stated by your fellow Stans as the best indicator of scoring efficiency. I disagree though. I think spending his prime on crap teams will hurt his legacy. He'll be known as a great player but once the hype dies down he'll also be known as a guy who could have been more.


If Yao wasn't hurt? It's not as easy as that. It was looking like LA figured out how to play Houston with Yao, and it wasn't until Yao went out did the real trouble begin.

As for the stat list, I'm laughing at the one YOU posted. look at that thing. lol.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by indiefan23 View Post
> Uh, because he got more minutes? Per 36 he posted better numbers in Cleveland anyway. Soo... yea, you are not correct.
> Actually, Smush did average his career highs in PPG and APG with the Lakers Soo... yeah, I am correct.
> 
> I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue now, is it that Kobe doesn't make his teammates better?


Ice, come on, read above. I said per 36. Incorrect.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Menh, I'm fine with the Lakers winning. They had the best team in the league and deserved it. Deserved it more then the Magic who were very lucky to come out of the east. If Yao wasn't hurt, they very likely don't win but that's sports.
> 
> 
> 
> I lol'ed at that too as the stat the list is based on, TS%, was stated by your fellow Stans as the best indicator of scoring efficiency. I disagree though. I think spending his prime on crap teams will hurt his legacy. He'll be known as a great player but once the hype dies down he'll also be known as a guy who could have been more.


You have unrealistic expectations for Kobe, he's got four titles at age 30, and will likely have one or two more, what the hell else do you want from him? Quit hating and just enjoy one of the most entertaining players the league has ever seen.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> you realize you posted playoff stats? it wasn't a giveaway that the top guys all played 7 games or less? no?
> 
> kobe was actually 86th this year. 48th last year. 42nd the year before. 50th in '06. is that good? bad?
> 
> fwiw, jordan was 67th in '93. 46th in '96. 55th in '97. 56th in '87.
> 
> but again, ts% as the best measure of scoring efficiency isn't really opinion. it's fact. that you're not quite there yet shows you've got some learning ahead of you. so while you figure out what you're novelty assist differential in 55+ point games means, you might want to just start with ts%.


Nope, didn't realize it but thanks for pointing out he was 86'th instead of 48.

I really don't care if Jordan was bad in it too. You're stating that Kevin Martin and Jose Calderone are more efficient scorers then Kobe/Bron/all those guys and that alone shows the weakness of the stat for that purpose. And you're trying to brag up Kobe for it when he pretty much sucks. I don't think you even know what you're trying to argue anymore.


----------



## bball2223

I'm just flabbergasted you guys have spent 17 pages arguing with a troll.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Nope, didn't realize it but thanks for pointing out he was 86'th instead of 48.
> 
> I really don't care if Jordan was bad in it too. You're stating that Kevin Martin and Jose Calderone are more efficient scorers then Kobe/Bron/all those guys and that alone shows the weakness of the stat for that purpose. And you're trying to brag up Kobe for it when he pretty much sucks. *I don't think you even know what you're trying to argue anymore*.


Judging by the responses of everyone in this thread besides you, i'd say kflo knows damn well what he's talking about. Stop personally attacking posters because you can't counter what he's saying.


----------



## hobojoe

Just stopping in to let you all know how much I've enjoyed this thread. Not that it's surprised me at all, I have a pretty good idea who knows basketball here and who doesn't. Thanks for the laughs everyone. And...




Tragedy said:


> Damn, dudes really been on the rag ever since the Lakers won the title. it must hurt to be a irrational Kobe Hater/Magic fan. Your team lost, take your Ls. At least last year LA fans gave the Celtics props for having such a tough defense after the series was over. It probably hurts because Kobe's been in the finals 2 years running, and four straight playoff appearances after missing the first of his career.. It must really hurt to know that it's only going to get tougher for Orlando to make it back, much less win it all, and that they may have to do it without their second best player in this years playoffs.
> 
> And lol @ that DUMB ASS? list of 48 players better than Kobe. Like anyone in their right mind would take the top five guys over Kobe. The lengths people go to to discredit Kobe Bryant or downplay his impact on the team or significance in today's NBA is outrageous. He can win more titles, or no more, and his place in NBA history is set, it can only get better from here on out, and I think that realization that he can climb the list of All Time greats, and in the end, when it's all said and done, all ridiculous criticisms will be silenced for good when his legacy is finally written. There are guys who are top 5 all time who've lost in the finals. It doesn't hurt their legacy, and 2004 and 2008 won't hurt his now that he won in 2009.


Just a reminder that one poster does not represent an entire fan base. I think Laker fans will agree that the Magic fans on this site have been mostly gracious in defeat and respectful, even during the frustrating games. Am I right Laker fans?


----------



## Luke

hobojoe said:


> Just stopping in to let you all know how much I've enjoyed this thread. Not that it's surprised me at all, I have a pretty good idea who knows basketball here and who doesn't. Thanks for the laughs everyone. And...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder that one poster does not represent an entire fan base. I think Laker fans will agree that the Magic fans on this site have been mostly gracious in defeat and respectful, even during the frustrating games. *Am I right Laker fans*?


For the most part, yeah, everyone's pretty pretty civil about it.


----------



## Game3525

Damn, you guys are still at it? I would think Indie would have blocked you by now,lol.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> You have unrealistic expectations for Kobe, he's got four titles at age 30, and will likely have one or two more, what the hell else do you want from him? Quit hating and just enjoy one of the most entertaining players the league has ever seen.


Man, I'm not hating. I do enjoy the guy. He's very talented. I don't enjoy him being over rated so much. He's not the greatest of all time and huge proportions of his fans literally still think he is.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Man, I'm not hating. I do enjoy the guy. He's very talented. I don't enjoy him being over rated so much. He's not the greatest of all time and huge proportions of his fans literally still think he is.


There "literally" isn't one poster on this board that thinks that Kobe is the best player of all time, hell, I doubt there's any posters that even think he's top five.


----------



## Game3525

VanillaPrice said:


> There "literally" isn't one poster on this board that thinks that Kobe is the best player of all time, hell, I doubt there's any posters that even think he's top five.


Yeah, I don't know where he is getting that from. I have never heard anyone, maybe besides those tools on the ESPN boards rate Kobe the GOAT. He is top 15 IMO, maybe even top ten, but he is not in the top five, let alone the best player to ever play the game.


----------



## Tragedy

hobojoe said:


> Just stopping in to let you all know how much I've enjoyed this thread. Not that it's surprised me at all, I have a pretty good idea who knows basketball here and who doesn't. Thanks for the laughs everyone. And...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder that one poster does not represent an entire fan base. I think Laker fans will agree that the Magic fans on this site have been mostly gracious in defeat and respectful, even during the frustrating games. Am I right Laker fans?


I honestly had you in mind when I made my post, about how a fan is supposed to react after a loss. I know he doesn't represent the entire fan base, my comments was directed at him solely.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Judging by the responses of everyone in this thread besides you, i'd say kflo knows damn well what he's talking about. Stop personally attacking posters because you can't counter what he's saying.


kflo is trying to tell me kobe is awesome because a stat that ranked him 86'th in the league this season, and 48'th in the playoffs, is the best measure of scoring efficiency. What the stat really does is adjust FG% up or down based on how well you shoot free throws and 3's. Technically it looks like its accurate but realistically its just false to claim that hitting free throws at 80% should count as much as making baskets at 60%. A guy like Jose Calderone is going to kill Shaq because he 'never' misses FT's. Efficiency from the field just counts more then the line because people fear it more and its consistent and free throws are totally dependent on the first stat. Calderone can't 'get his' from the line because he can't force fouls at the rate Shaq can.

If I'm working a job making widgets and with 100 widget resources I can make 57 widgets, however another guy with 50 widgets resources can make 30 widgets, but can never make more then 30 widgets in a week, am I more efficient producer at my job in comparison? No, I am not, at all. That's why they call the stat 'True Shooting Percentage' instead of 'Scoring Efficiency' because the latter would be a total misnomer.

Efficiency stats are based on a common period (usually time or pace) and go something like this. In 100 possessions how many points do they score? That's their offensive efficiency. Out of how many shots, what proportion do they get in the hoop, that's a percentage. Efficiency is measured in units of production, not percentages. Its a subtle, yet very pertinent difference.

kflo actually, does not know what he's talking about but keeps pretending he does. Its rather frustrating.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> You are here for legitimate discussion? All you do is call people Kobe homers and ride the coattails of other people's arguments. You started a thread and when asked why it was a great article said your keyboard broke.
> Give me a break.
> 
> The reason people are bringing up Parker, Atkins and Kwame is because Indie is actually trying to argue that they are good starters and you should easily win 50 games on their side. No one is arguing that Walton, Odom, Butler and Turiaf aren't good at what they do.


I said those guys had potential and/or weren't horrible terrible role players. Not that. sigh


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> kflo is trying to tell me kobe is awesome because a stat that ranked him 86'th in the league this season, and 48'th in the playoffs, is the best measure of scoring efficiency. What the stat really does is adjust FG% up or down based on how well you shoot free throws and 3's. Technically it looks like its accurate but realistically its just false to claim that hitting free throws at 80% should count as much as making baskets at 60%. A guy like Jose Calderone is going to kill Shaq because he 'never' misses FT's. Efficiency from the field just counts more then the line because people fear it more and its consistent and free throws are totally dependent on the first stat. Calderone can't 'get his' from the line because he can't force fouls at the rate Shaq can.
> 
> If I'm working a job making widgets and with 100 widget resources I can make 57 widgets, however another guy with 50 widgets resources can make 30 widgets, but can never make more then 30 widgets in a week, am I more efficient producer at my job in comparison? No, I am not, at all. That's why they call the stat 'True Shooting Percentage' instead of 'Scoring Efficiency' because the latter would be a total misnomer.
> 
> Efficiency stats are based on a common period (usually time or pace) and go something like this. In 100 possessions how many points do they score? That's their offensive efficiency. Out of how many shots, what proportion do they get in the hoop, that's a percentage. Efficiency is measured in units of production, not percentages. Its a subtle, yet very pertinent difference.
> 
> kflo actually, does not know what he's talking about but keeps pretending he does. Its rather frustrating.



TS% *is* the best measure of scoring efficieny, especially if you can (personally) factor in volume.

Why do you keep on attacking kflo? He's a good poster, and you've been ignoring all of his posts all thread long, and now that you've realized that you can't argue with him, you're attacking him personally, i've been warning you all thread long, don't do it again.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> There "literally" isn't one poster on this board that thinks that Kobe is the best player of all time, hell, I doubt there's any posters that even think he's top five.


In a non-LA playoff game this year (bulls/celtics I think, everyone was watching anyway) they showed the results of a poll... they asked who the best playoff performer of all time was. Results:

MJ 40%
Bird 6%
Magic 4%

Kobe.... 34%

Not rank them, who's the best, ever. I'm guessing you're under rating Kobe's fan's fanaticism of him.


----------



## R-Star

indiefan showed up when ChrisRichards ran away. Now isn't that just a strange strange, coincidence.


----------



## Nightmute

R-Star said:


> indiefan showed up when ChrisRichards ran away. Now isn't that just a strange strange, coincidence.


ChrisRichards is gone? What the hell, when did that happen?


----------



## R-Star

Nightmute said:


> ChrisRichards is gone? What the hell, when did that happen?


He ran away last week. I'm sure he'll show back up sooner or later.

A quick IP check would show indiefan is indeed ChrisRichards to begin with anyways, so he's not truly gone.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> In a non-LA playoff game this year (bulls/celtics I think, everyone was watching anyway) they showed the results of a poll... they asked who the best playoff performer of all time was. Results:
> 
> MJ 40%
> Bird 6%
> Magic 4%
> 
> Kobe.... 34%
> 
> Not rank them, who's the best, ever. I'm guessing you're under rating Kobe's fan's fanaticism of him.


I reiterate - There "literally" isn't one poster *on this board *that thinks that Kobe is the best player of all time, hell, I doubt there's any posters that even think he's top five.


----------



## R-Star

VanillaPrice said:


> I reiterate - There "literally" isn't one poster *on this board *that thinks that Kobe is the best player of all time, hell, I doubt there's any posters that even think he's top five.


You could find some guys who will say hes top 5. There are a lot of homers on this site. No one would be crazy enough to call him GOAT though, I agree.


----------



## Luke

R-Star said:


> You could find some guys who will say hes top 5. There are a lot of homers on this site. No one would be crazy enough to call him GOAT though, I agree.


I don't think so, as far as I know none of the regulars at the Lakers board put him that high. There definatly are crazy fanboys elsewhere though, I just don't really know of any on this site.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

hobojoe said:


> Just a reminder that one poster does not represent an entire fan base. I think Laker fans will agree that the Magic fans on this site have been mostly gracious in defeat and respectful, even during the frustrating games. Am I right Laker fans?


Don't put yourself in the same class with this dude. Some people don't like Kobe but can still respect him enough to give him props now and then and save their criticism for a context where it's relevant. 

Some people make up novelty stats to justify their delusional opinions. This guy belongs with the duncan2k5's and SPMJ's of the world who say things like they'd take Troy Hudson over Kobe Bryant, or that the Lakers won the title _inspite_ of Kobe. 

I can understand not liking his personality, and I can understand disagreeing with the morality of a proven adulterer, and I admit he is good for 2-5 pretty bad shots per game. That kind of stuff I can understand criticism or dislike. But he has so many respectable qualities that people need to appreciate. He is one of the most fierce competitors ever, one of the most skilled players ever, has a mind for the game unsurpassed by anyone I've ever seen, has a work ethic as good as anyone has ever had, and has been a winner in multiple situations. As a 2nd option, and now as a 1st option with completely different personnel. Respect the man for what he is good at. He is a legend.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> TS% *is* the best measure of scoring efficieny, especially if you can (personally) factor in volume.
> 
> Why do you keep on attacking kflo? He's a good poster, and you've been ignoring all of his posts all thread long, and now that you've realized that you can't argue with him, you're attacking him personally, i've been warning you all thread long, don't do it again.


Umm... TS% IS NOT a measure of scoring efficiency, so how can it be the best? You can factor in volume if you want, but those would be fudged numbers.

Why am 'I attacking' kflo? Lets see how the guy introduced himself to me...


terrible article.

don't you understand - you started with your own hypothesis - kobe sucks, and you invented a stat that fit your hypothesis. it's laughable. i mean, fg%???? seriously??? maybe this type of stuff will get you a mention from skip or bill, but please don't try and pass it off as anything other than junk. ast to points in 40+ games??? i mean, how absurd can you get. it doesn't pass a laugh test. but hey, you figured something out. got yourself a stat! way to go.

you still fail at showing what it is your analysis is showing about quality. it says nothing. it's numbers slapped together.

there's nothing worse than someone complaining about how someone isn't that good and won't win, and then when they do, says well, yeah, they changed to play the way i said they should. it's lame.

Not to mention the guy repeatedly asked the exact same question demanding I answer it when I'd answered it like, 4 times, just not with the answer he wanted. The dude has just been overall arrogant with me. Which is fine if he wants to be that way, I'm not crying. I should just ignore people who purposefully miss the point of what I've said and refuse to accept any valid points made.


----------



## Game3525

VanillaPrice said:


> I don't think so, as far as I know none of the regulars at the Lakers board put him that high. There definatly are *crazy fanboys elsewhere though*, I just don't really know of any on this site.


ESPN boards is where they are at.


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> Don't put yourself in the same class with this dude. Some people don't like Kobe but can still respect him enough to give him props now and then and save their criticism for a context where it's relevant.
> 
> Some people make up novelty stats to justify their delusional opinions. This guy belongs with the duncan2k5's and SPMJ's of the world who say things like they'd take Troy Hudson over Kobe Bryant, or that the Lakers won the title _inspite_ of Kobe.
> 
> I can understand not liking his personality, and I can understand disagreeing with the morality of a proven adulterer, and I admit he is good for 2-5 pretty bad shots per game. That kind of stuff I can understand criticism or dislike. But he has so many respectable qualities that people need to appreciate. He is one of the most fierce competitors ever, one of the most skilled players ever, has a mind for the game unsurpassed by anyone I've ever seen, has a work ethic as good as anyone has ever had, and has been a winner in multiple situations. As a 2nd option, and now as a 1st option with completely different personnel. Respect the man for what he is good at. He is a legend.


Umm... are you talking about me? The guy who said Kobe deserved his title?


I don't want to enter the hate zone. I don't have an agenda against him that prevents me from being fair. I'm a bigger fan of other players but if the guy does well, I'll say it. He's played great in the finals and at the end of the Denver series. He did so why deny it?

Know what? After sticking with the guy and defending all the criticism they deserve a day in the sun and Kobe deserves this ring. Congratulations Kobe Klan, talk it up.

Really fair assessment I got here huh? With that, I'll maybe come back in a bit, but I've got some shizzle to do.


----------



## R-Star

ChrisRichards, you do understand this is pathetic right?


----------



## Game3525

R-Star said:


> ChrisRichards, you do understand this is pathetic right?


Is it really him?


----------



## R-Star

Game3525 said:


> Is it really him?


I have no idea. I'm just bored.

Wouldn't be surprised though. He was making those crazy "league cheated to get Fish and Pau to the Lakers" posts right before he ran away. Seems to match up.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Haven't seen duncan2k5 in awhile either.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> I wrote like, 1000 or more words breaking down how Kobe's biggest scoring nights are against bottom feeder teams that they should be beating anyway. Just because you didn't read it does not mean it wasn't addressed.


Sorry teams are routinely lit up by great scorers, and since you didn't check to see if Jordan or other great scorers routinely lit up sorry teams as often as Kobe, your point becomes entirely moot. Michael Jordan in fact lit up sorry defensive teams more than he did good teams. It's common sense that this would happen, and you've still yet to explain what damage Bryant is doing to by lighting up sorry teams and winning in the process. What's the harm, that his teammates sometimes don't get involved? Again, welcome to the 21st century, this has been known for a while and your stat doesn't add anything to the discussion. 



> I gave a detailed analysis. I think its moronic to say that a role player who shoots 60% for an entire season with less turnovers then Shaq ever had in his entire career is terrible, but that's just me.


Take a poll asking how good Kwame Brown is, then compare him to Shaq. The entire board will laugh at you. He's garbage. 



> Or a guard who shoots 45% for that matter. Or the fact that you left off Luke Walton, Sasha Vujacic, Ronny Turief, Jordan Farmar, Andrew Bynum, Caron Butler, Devean George and Lamar Freaking Odom.


I didn't leave out Butler, Odom, Walton or Sasha. Read. Carefully. 

(lmao, Devean George :laugh: )



> Having no team around you is what Jordan had when Scotti Pippen was getting 22 minutes a game, his second best player was career scrub Sam Vincent and his third leading scorer was 'good defensive guy' Charles Oakley. They won 50 games and were dark horse title contenders.


They were nowhere near dark horse title contenders in 88, sorry, but you're reaching so badly it's sad. And Kobe isn't as good as Jordan, so it's not really an insult to say Bryant couldn't do as well especially considering he still led a team to 45 wins in his highest scoring season ever in a tougher conference. Your stat, again, becomes entirely moot knowing how often the team won when he scored 40+, a point you have still yet to address anywhere and something you didn't adequately address in your article and continue not to point out because you know you didn't. 



> Lets see, if he keeps the team that won 3 straight and mad the finals 4/5 years togehter, and doesn't shoot them out of the finals like in 2004, yea, he's got a shot at 8. He had 3 at waht, age 22 or 23?? And for the record, I said 6-8, not 8+. Its totally reasonable. Holy crap. He 'should' have 5 right now, I put a low end on it and said 6 as Shaq won another one with Wade. Its stupid to argue he couldn't.


Frankly, the fact that you think Bryant should win 8 titles in his career means your expectations are just ridiculously inane. People are literally laughing at your posts. And no, you in fact said Bryant should win 8+ championships by the end of his career. Here, I'll even link and quote you: "I state he is great, and his personal exploits derailed his career which could have ended with 8 (or more) titles".



> Chucky Atkins shot 43% scoring 13.6 with 4.4 dimes for one year. Its not 'fantastic' nor did he have to be because he had Kobe, Lamar and Butler on his team.


You're clueless, objective statistical evidence says he was never any good. Get over it. Sam Vincent was better than Atkins btw (better career PER and PER with the Bulls than Atkins'13.4 PER in 05 for the Lakers).



> Except when he posted 16.2. Christ, 15.7 PER is above average as well. Thanks for making my point for me. Terrible hands yet less TOV/36 then Shaq had in his whole career, shot over 50% the years he wasn't hurt. 14/10 are NOT bad /36 numbers for a guy getting 25 mpg. Mihm is not Shaq, but he's not a horrible role player.


He posted 16.6 in *22* games. :laugh: 

And a 15.0 PER is the literal definition of average. Read. He was a terrible role player and didn't get any minutes on the Lakers the past two seasons as soon as actual, good role players starting getting minutes. Get over it, objective statistical evidence proves you wrong yet again. 



> Heh, yea, playing hurt hurts your PER. He was right by the playoffs and did fine posting 12/8.5 in only his second season. It was obvious Butler was a really good player even before he got to LA. Eddie Jones was not 'instrumental' in their success. Wade and Butler spent half the season injured so he filled in scoring while they were out and when they were back Wade took over the team. It was obvious it belonged to their young core. By the playoffs both players were filling roles and playing defense. And the wunder kid here does not even know his own team because Brian Grant DID come over in the Shaq trade.


Brian Grant was injured all season kid, and Eddie Jones was absolutely instrumental; christ, you just said Mihm's 16.2 PER with the Cavs (actually it was 16.6, yet another statistic you flubbed up) was quite good, yet no mention that Eddie Jones' PER was in fact higher in Miami at 16.7. 




> Lamar flourished when Bynum got hurt and LA put him, Gasol, Kobe Ariza and Fisher on the floor. Unquestionably their best lineup all season. Odom was not good coming off the bench at all. Gasol is better then Odom IMHO, but I really fail to see how it makes him suck.
> 
> Oh, it continues with people who don't knwo what they are talking about.


What? The Lakers just won the NBA championship with Andrew Bynum starting 18 of 23 games in the postseason. 

:laugh:

Granted, Odom was better than Bynum this season due to injury, but statistically he didn't play like this in 04-05, he played much better this season in a reduced role because he wasn't able to carry the 2nd option load with the Lakers, something he couldn't do with Miami or the Clippers. Fact. 



> Except the scope is >40 point games, and the sample size is perfectly fine for that dataset. And I totally adressed the weak competition in th earticle.
> 
> I'm sorry, when people make comments that totally reflet they didn't read the article, why should I reply again? He says "You don't even give an explanation for how Bryant's team continues to win at a higher rate when he posts 40+ points" when I had an 1k words addressing it. Sorry if I don't reply to people who don't deserve it, and I'm starting to think you'r ein that category...


"Weak competition" is NOT an explanation! You didn't look up the competition Jordan, Wade, Nique, etc. scored their 40+ games on AND you _still_ didn't prove Bryant mostly scored 40+ against weak competition because you didn't list ALL the teams he scored 40+ point games on in his career. Instead, you cherry picked a sample and downplayed the good teams he DID in fact score 40+ points on. It's a garbage analysis without knowing if OTHER scorers are scoring in similar ways. Your bunk stat does nothing to disprove my point. Your "explanation" wasn't one at all, it was excuse-making. 



> Except, like most things, you guys are just guessing. Which is it? Is my scope and sample size horrible? Then why are you taking 3 averages and using it to generate a trend? Its a horrible sample of actual game results in a meaningless scope.
> 
> When you don't guess at things though, you'll see that Iverson's assists when shooting follow th trend.
> 
> >50%: 6.14 dimes
> >60%: 6.74 dimes
> >70%: 7.4 dimes
> 
> Heres a little chart I made for you just so you can see it visually. Mabye you guys read picture books in highscool and need visual stimulation???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with that, this will be the last post I take to go in depth with someone who's only goal is trying to nay say my stat or homer Kobe. I'm actually happy Kobe finally won without Shaq... maybe the pressure is off him now and he won't act out. Is the NBA better if Kobe is playing his best ball and contending, yes, it is, so I'm all for it. I'm not a huge fan but I'm not going to besmirch someone's success. I will however call out you losers who have to lie about stats and mis represent everything you talk about. As if. I said Kobe has never really taken a mediocre player and made him better and some loser came back with "na ah! Shannon Brown and Josh Powel have improved" when they've only been there for 18/whatever games and actually both played better elsewhere. Its just such a steaming loaded pile of crap you put everywhere to prop this guy up. And you do dump everywhere, even on your own team and players. With fan support like that no wonder your role players lost their confidence. That used to be New York guys, but now LA has taken it's place. Congrats!


lmao, you continue to wimp out and contradict yourself in each and every post. You claim Chris Mihm is a good role player for having had a 16+ PER one time in 22 games with the Cavs, then claim someone is stupid for using a data sample of "only 18/whatever" games. You list Mihm's PER but not Chucky Atkins's 13.4 PER, claim Caron Butler was "back" and healthy for the 03-04 playoffs with Miami without mentioning that his PER was worse in the 03-04 playoffs with Wade than it was with Bryant in LA. And now you're only listing Iverson's stats increasing with FG% when that's a 1 player sample, and is worthless without additional coorboration and, frankly, you've listed so many factually incorrect stats throughout that article and this thread that frankly I wouldn't take any stat you came up with in your analysis seriously.


----------



## Kneejoh

Guys you can't argue with Indie23 he also believes that if a teammate of Kobe's leaves the Lakers and has a better season any time after that: Kobe was holding him back. And if he has a worse year any time after: Kobe affected him so bad while he was in L.A. that he is still regressing.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

VanillaPrice said:


> I don't think so, as far as I know none of the regulars at the Lakers board put him that high. There definatly are crazy fanboys elsewhere though, I just don't really know of any on this site.


yeah. havent seen anyone here put kobe in the top 5 spot. not even in the top 6-8 range. at this point its questionable if he's even top 10. so i dont know where these people picked this "top 5, goat" idea.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

bball2223 said:


> I'm just flabbergasted you guys have spent 17 pages arguing with a troll.


yeah. it boggles the mind.


----------



## hobojoe

Sir Patchwork said:


> Don't put yourself in the same class with this dude. Some people don't like Kobe but can still respect him enough to give him props now and then and save their criticism for a context where it's relevant.
> 
> Some people make up novelty stats to justify their delusional opinions. This guy belongs with the duncan2k5's and SPMJ's of the world who say things like they'd take Troy Hudson over Kobe Bryant, or that the Lakers won the title _inspite_ of Kobe.
> 
> I can understand not liking his personality, and I can understand disagreeing with the morality of a proven adulterer, and I admit he is good for 2-5 pretty bad shots per game. That kind of stuff I can understand criticism or dislike. But he has so many respectable qualities that people need to appreciate. He is one of the most fierce competitors ever, one of the most skilled players ever, has a mind for the game unsurpassed by anyone I've ever seen, has a work ethic as good as anyone has ever had, and has been a winner in multiple situations. As a 2nd option, and now as a 1st option with completely different personnel. Respect the man for what he is good at. He is a legend.



Yea, anyone who's been on this site for more than a few years would know that I've never been a big Kobe fan, but in that other thread I just said Kobe's 9th all-time on my list. I don't like him personally, and there have been times when he's frustrated me as a basketball fan because I didn't think he was playing the way he should -- but there's absolutely no denying his greatness anymore in my opinion. I say that even though I downgrade him significantly for his performances in the two NBA Finals' he lost, particularly the one against Detroit. Top 10 player ever, possibly Top 5 when he's done.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Kobe in the top 5? :laugh:

MAYBE, top ten.


----------



## Nightmute

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe in the top 5? :laugh:
> 
> MAYBE, top ten.


Kobe Hater!


----------



## Prolific Scorer

So i'm a bitter Kobe hater now? :laugh:


I gave LA their props but half of you arguing can't even read, and the other half don't know basketball so i'm not suprised. I make a thread, make a few posts and ask a few questions and i'm a Kobe hater..


I was more upset with MY TEAM rather than bash the Lakers. Once again I gave the Lakers their props, and you can ask guys like Darth Bryant or even Basel about how i've given LA their due all during the Regular Season and into the Postseason and have never regularly bashed them by no means. 


That other Magic fan doesn't ever give any real insight or breakdown the game, but uses most of his posts to kiss *** and ramble on about mostly nothing.


The truth hurts.


----------



## hobojoe

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe in the top 5? :laugh:
> 
> MAYBE, top ten.


If that's in response to me (honestly not sure) I said he could be Top 5 when he's done. You would agree with that, right?


----------



## Prolific Scorer

See? 


Even considering Kobe Bryant top 5 honestly is a slap in the face to NBA History. Go learn the game.


----------



## hobojoe

Prolific Scorer said:


> See?
> 
> 
> Even considering Kobe Bryant top 5 honestly is a slap in the face to NBA History. Go learn the game.


Saying Kobe Bryant could end up in the Top 5 when he retires is a slap in the face of NBA history? You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## hobojoe

Prolific Scorer said:


> That other Magic fan doesn't ever give any real insight or breakdown the game, but uses most of his posts to kiss *** and ramble on about mostly nothing.


Says the guy with one blog post, and it's about how the Magic should've traded Turkoglu. I'm jealous of your ability to provide that type of insight. Unfortunately for me my posts come off to you as "kissing ***" because you're incapable of being objective when it comes to the Magic, so in contrast that's how I come off. On top of the fact you know nothing about basketball to begin with. Being a homer, not knowing what you're talking about and being an e-thug is a really bad combination. I don't even need to dig up old posts to discredit you, this thread alone does enough. If only these were the good old days with me, JNice and lachlanwood. You know, when I could actually post on the Magic forum and expect an intelligent conversation. 

There's really no reason to cry over Kobe Bryant, or the fact that this thread with the stat you thought was so brilliant backfired miserably. Kobe is great. I don't like it either, but it's true. Might as well start accepting it.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

hobojoe said:


> If that's in response to me (honestly not sure) I said he could be Top 5 when he's done. You would agree with that, right?


It was directed at whomever made the implication that Lakers fans here think that Kobe is the GOAT or even top 5 all-time at this current moment.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

> Says the guy with one blog post, and it's about how the Magic should've traded Turkoglu. I'm jealous of your ability to provide that type of insight.


Nice try, but that blog was prior to this season. I guess you forgot how bad Hedo played in the '07 and '08 Playoffs? Did you also forget how Hedo said he was opting out 20 games into the season and was playing for a fat paycheck?



> Unfortunately for me my posts come off to you as "kissing ***" because you're incapable of being objective when it comes to the Magic, so in contrast that's how I come off. On top of the fact you know nothing about basketball to begin with.


Says the guy who thinks Kobe should be top 5 with guys like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Jordan, O'Neal, Duncan.



> Being a homer, not knowing what you're talking about and being an e-thug is a really bad combination.


:laugh:



> I don't even need to dig up old posts to discredit you, this thread alone does enough. If only these were the good old days with me, JNice and lachlanwood. You know, when I could actually post on the Magic forum and expect an intelligent conversation.


Dig them up, be my guest. In the posts i've seen you make the passed month you've absolutely said NOTHING except politic on these forums with your constant asskissing and inablility to breakdown any part of the game.



> There's really no reason to cry over Kobe Bryant, or the fact that this thread with the stat you thought was so brilliant backfired miserably. Kobe is great. I don't like it either, but it's true. Might as well start accepting it.


What were my expectations besides start some discussion (that you obviously can't provide) in this thread? Like I said i've given LA their props and you can ask those (competent) select Laker posters how i've given LA their props all year. Nice try.

You should seriously stop posting.


----------



## bball2223

:laugh: at Prolific. Good Lord man Hobojoe has been one of the best we have had around here for a long time. Do you have to agree with everything he says? No but jesus man step back, relax, and realize he is right in this instance. The fact you had to resort to tell him to stop posting shows that you have pretty much gotten your *** handed to you in this thread and are just frustrated. :whiteflag:


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Prolific Scorer said:


> Once again I gave the Lakers their props, and you can ask guys like Darth Bryant or even Basel about how i've given LA their due all during the Regular Season and into the Postseason and have never regularly bashed them by no means.


That's what is disappointing. You gave credit where credit was due during and after the Finals. But then you post an article without giving any indication that you fully knew what it was even talking about. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that you have an agenda against Kobe Bryant. How else could you possibly explain posting an article that you didn't fully comprehend in the first place? This is like a Jekyll and Hyde act from the postseason. For you to make note of other poster's inability to read is ridiculous now that you are bashing hobojoe for claiming that Kobe is top 5 when he has made abundantly clear that he was referring to the possibility of it being cemented BY THE END OF HIS CAREER. Not now. Being stubborn and refusing to concede is fine, but twisting another's words is just not cool.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

bball2223 said:


> :laugh: at Prolific. Good Lord man Hobojoe has been one of the best we have had around here for a long time. Do you have to agree with everything he says? No but jesus man step back, relax, and realize he is right in this instance. The fact you had to resort to tell him to stop posting shows that you have pretty much gotten your *** handed to you in this thread and are just frustrated. :whiteflag:


After he resorted to calling me a homer, idiot and e-thug? Like I said some people just can't read?

Who are you anyway?


----------



## hobojoe

Prolific Scorer said:


> Nice try, but that blog was prior to this season. I guess you forgot how bad Hedo played in the '07 and '08 Playoffs? Did you also forget how Hedo said he was opting out 20 games into the season and was playing for a fat paycheck.


Wait...that's your defense? It was before the season? Did you miss the part where the Magic made the NBA Finals, and obviously wouldn't have been there without Hedo? Do you still think we should've traded him? I'm not quite sure what you're point is.




> Says the guy who thinks Kobe should be top 5 with guys like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Jordan, O'Neal, Duncan.


Can you not read, or are you being stupid on purpose? I think this is the 4th time I've said this, but Bryant COULD END UP in the Top 5 all-time. As in, he's still active. He's still playing. He could win more titles. He could accumulate more accolades. He could do a lot of things, he's not exactly washed up. Get it?





> Dig them up, be my guest. In the posts i've seen you make the passed month you've absolutely said NOTHING except politic on these forums with your constant asskissing and inablility to breakdown any part of the game.


Again, I have no reason to dig your posts up, anyone who wants to evaluate your knowledge should just read this thread, they'll have their answers. I don't have to prove my knowledge or understanding of the game to anyone here, when there's actually something worth discussing and will, and do add my insight. Not to mention I already have proven myself on these boards. You on the other hand, make yourself look foolish every time you type. 





> What were my expecations besides start some discussion (that you obviously can't provide) in this thread? Like I said i've given LA their props and you can ask those (competent) select Laker posters how i've given LA their props all year. Nice try.
> 
> You should seriously stop posting.


The "article" and you slurping it up is pure comedy on so many levels. Kobe doesn't have as many assists as he normally does when he's going off scoring-wise, he is teh suck! Have you ever thought that maybe he plays the facilitator role not only when that's what the defense is giving him, but when his shot isn't on? And when his scoring game is clicking on all cylinders like we've all seen, he...I don't know, scores more than he looks to pass? I know, it would make more sense for him to pass when he's exploding and doing it efficiently, and the team is winning. The basis of this thread is moronic at best. Not surprising, given the OP.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> That's what is disappointing. You gave credit where credit was due during and after the Finals. But then you post an article without giving any indication that you fully knew what it was even talking about. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that you have an agenda against Kobe Bryant. How else could you possibly explain posting an article that you didn't fully comprehend in the first place? This is like a Jekyll and Hyde act from the postseason. For you to make note of other poster's inability to read is ridiculous now that you are bashing hobojoe for claiming that Kobe is top 5 when he has made abundantly clear that he was referring to the possibility of it being cemented BY THE END OF HIS CAREER. Not now. Being stubborn and refusing to concede is fine, but twisting another's words is just not cool.


Not that I even have to respond to this, but I already told you I was experiencing technical difficulties with my keyboard and it would've taken me FOREVER to type any long, drawn out post those two days. 

By the time I bought a new keyboard I came in and read this thread indie23 (the author of this article it seems) had already broke down the logic in better wording that even I could come up with and tried explaining it to you guys. What else was there to say? Should I have just copied and pasted his posts?


C'mon BH, you should know me better than that. Me a Kobe hater? Never.


I just hate the Cavaliers


----------



## bball2223

Prolific Scorer said:


> After he resorted to calling me a homer, idiot and e-thug? Like I said some people just can't read?
> 
> Who are you anyway?


I'm an Admin, kinda hypocritical to say people can't read, eh?


----------



## King Joseus

This thread may very well have run its course. Lots of silliness going on...


----------



## Prolific Scorer

> Wait...that's your defense? It was before the season? Did you miss the part where the Magic made the NBA Finals, and obviously wouldn't have been there without Hedo? Do you still think we should've traded him? I'm not quite sure what you're point is.


Do you not understand? Hedo was horrible in the '07 and '08 Playoffs and now in HINDSIGHT you critize me for a blog I wrote last year? I'm beginning to think you aren't that smart.






> Can you not read, or are you being stupid on purpose? I think this is the 4th time I've said this, but Bryant COULD END UP in the Top 5 all-time. As in, he's still active. He's still playing. He could win more titles. He could accumulate more accolades. He could do a lot of things, he's not exactly washed up. Get it?


Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Shaq and even Tim Duncan all belong ahead of Kobe Bryant regardless of what Bryant does the rest of his career. Get it?





> Again, I have no reason to dig your posts up, anyone who wants to evaluate your knowledge should just read this thread, they'll have their answers. I don't have to prove my knowledge or understanding of the game to anyone here, when there's actually something worth discussing and will, and do add my insight. Not to mention I already have proven myself on these boards. You on the other hand, make yourself look foolish every time you type.


A long paragraph filled with nothing once again. Not uncommon with you.






> The "article" and you slurping it up is pure comedy on so many levels. Kobe doesn't have as many assists as he normally does when he's going off scoring-wise, he is teh suck! Have you ever thought that maybe he plays the facilitator role not only when that's what the defense is giving him, but when his shot isn't on? And when his scoring game is clicking on all cylinders like we've all seen, he...I don't know, scores more than he looks to pass? I know, it would make more sense for him to pass when he's exploding and doing it efficiently, and the team is winning. The basis of this thread is moronic at best. Not surprising, given the OP.


Making a thread is bashing Kobe? I asked a few questions but if you find a post where I blatently bashed Kobe in this thread go ahead...


No matter how many words you can type in a post it doesn't negate someone's ability to sift through all that BS and realize you have just said nothing.


----------



## King Joseus

Prolific Scorer said:


> Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Shaq and even Tim Duncan all belong ahead of Kobe Bryant regardless of what Bryant does the rest of his career. Get it?


Just pointing out that you might want to tone that statement down a bit. Unlikely as it'd be, Kobe could have ridiculous seasons and win multiple championships that could put him above Shaq and Duncan. Not saying it'll happen - just saying that it's a bit silly to be making such a definitive statement.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

King Joseus said:


> Just pointing out that you might want to tone that statement down a bit. Unlikely as it'd be, Kobe could have ridiculous seasons and win multiple championships that could put him above Shaq and Duncan. Not saying it'll happen - just saying that it's a bit silly to be making such a definitive statement.


No it's not. As individual players as far as stats or impact Shaq and Duncan have done WAY MORE with their teams & the NBA that it easily outweighs Bryant's (especially Shaq), but I understand alot of people either didn't see it or have short memories.

Tim Duncan won a ring as the #1 guy in his 2nd Year! His team has won more than 50 games EVERY YEAR he's been in the LEAGUE.

Shaq is arguably the most dominant player of this era and also has 3 Finals MVPs (with Bryant on the team) and gets criticized now that he's on the decline. 


Yes Kobe has now won his Title / Finals MVP as the man on HIS team, but lets not overblow it and make some rediculous claims in the heat of the moment.

Besides both Duncan and Shaq are still playing and still good to great (with Duncan still being All-NBA 1st / 2nd Team material) players who could win another ring as well. Hell, Shaq could get traded to Cleveland with LeBron and win one and we'll (the people making such claims) would forget this conversation ever happened.


----------



## hobojoe

Prolific Scorer said:


> Do you not understand? Hedo was horrible in the '07 and '08 Playoffs and now in HINDSIGHT you critize me for a blog I wrote last year? I'm beginning to think you aren't that smart.


So if I write a blog tonight about how the Cavs should cut LeBron because he sucks, and they win the championship next year you can't criticize me right? 





> Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Shaq and even Tim Duncan all belong ahead of Kobe Bryant regardless of what Bryant does the rest of his career. Get it?


There is nothing Kobe can do the rest of his career to surpass them? I'll keep this nice and short for you. You're wrong.




> A long paragraph filled with nothing once again. Not uncommon with you.


A typical response when you have nothing to counter.






> No matter how many words you can type in a post it doesn't negate someone's ability to sift through all that BS and realize you have just said nothing.


See above.


----------



## King Joseus

Prolific Scorer said:


> No it's not. The impact Shaq and Duncan have had on their teams & the NBA outweighs Bryant's (especially Shaq), but I understand alot of people either didn't see it or don't remember.
> 
> Tim Duncan won a ring as the #1 guy in his 2nd Year! His team has won more than 50 games EVERY YEAR he's been in the LEAGUE.
> 
> Shaq is arguably the most dominant player of this era and also has 3 Finals MVPs (with Bryant on the team) and gets criticized now that he's on the decline.
> 
> 
> Yes Kobe has now won his Title / Finals MVP as the man on HIS team, but lets not overblow it and make some rediculous claims in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Besides both Duncan and Shaq are still playing and still good to great (with Duncan still being All-NBA 1st / 2nd Team material) players who could win another ring as well. Hell, Shaq could get traded to Cleveland with LeBron and win one and we'll (the people making such claims) would forget this conversation ever happened.


I'm well aware of Shaq and Duncan's greatness and am a fan of both players. No, Kobe is not better than either at this point. You cannot say, however, that Kobe winning another MVP, 2+ Championships, and playing well over the remainder of his career (presuming no championships for Shaq or Duncan) wouldn't put him a notch above the two. Or any other number of quality achievements. Again, I don't expect it to happen. But to say, unequivocally, that there is nothing Kobe could do to pass either of those two is not quite right.

It's really not that big of a deal, though. eace:


----------



## Prolific Scorer

> So if I write a blog tonight about how the Cavs should cut LeBron because he sucks, and they win the championship next year you can't criticize me right?


That's the best analogy you have?

Hedo shot 39% this year and had one good Playoff series and that's somehow a knock on my blog? 








> There is nothing Kobe can do the rest of his career to surpass them? I'll keep this nice and short for you. You're wrong.


Keep it short because you can't backup your arguement. Not suprised.

How long have you been watching the NBA? Do you even know who those guys are and how great they were?

I'm serious.






> A typical response when you have nothing to counter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.


Yawwwwn.

I'm still waiting on you to backup your ignorance on how I bashed Kobe. I guess you'd rather forget about that.


I've seen your kind, you're the type who doesn't get in depth about anything, but rather makes long, drawn out paragraphs with general statements that way you come off looking like you know what you're talking about.

I can see right through you. 

I just wanted to see how moronic you were, and as far as i'm concerned you've been exposed and will no longer respond to your ignorance.


----------



## Nightmute

Prolific, can you provide an argument as to why players like Magic and Bird are unquestionably better then Kobe?


----------



## Kaas

I got to page 8 of this thread, and just gave up. Maybe I'll read the rest later, butI doubt it (some of the idiocy is making my head hurt). The fact that this thread has gone on for so long is strange (maybe the debate has changed since, I don't know). The article and stat are clearly agenda driven. The guy can say otherwise, but lots of his comments against Kobe in this thread have nothing to do with the stat he made. And the player descriptions are a joke.

He's talking about statistics, but he's forgetting the basic rule. Correlation does not mean causation. Kobe took more shots during that 3-year span and his team record is worse. There is an undeniable connection there. The conclusion derived from this by means of some new stat is just someone desperately grasping at straws and anyone with a brain can see through this poorly veiled scheme.


----------



## hobojoe

Prolific Scorer said:


> That's the best analogy you have?
> 
> Hedo shot 39% this year and had one good Playoff series and that's somehow a knock on my blog?


First of all, no he didn't. Secondly, your blog sucks because the Magic absolutely should not have traded Hedo. You say trade him, he turns around and helps lead the team to the freakin' NBA Finals, I would say that's reason to knock your blog. What don't you get?





> Keep it short because you can't backup your arguement. Not suprised.


:laugh: I thought my posts were too long? Now they're too short, got it.




> How long have you been watching the NBA? Do you even know who those guys are and how great they were?
> 
> I'm serious.


No, who's this Tim Duncan guy you're talking about? I mean, you can probably find hundreds of posts I've made about him over the past 6 years, but I don't know who he is. And I've been watching the NBA religiously for about 15 years, or about as long as you've been alive.



> Yawwwwn.
> 
> I'm still waiting on you to backup your ignorance on how I bashed Kobe. I guess you'd rather forget about that.


Posting the article pretty much covers it. 




> I've seen your kind, you're the type who doesn't get in depth about anything, but rather makes long, drawn out paragraphs with general statements that way you come off looking like you know what you're talking about.


This would be a solid point, if it were anywhere close to true. So I guess I'll just leave it at that, I mean how else can I respond?




> just wanted to see how moronic you were, and as far as i'm concerned you've been exposed and will no longer respond to your ignorance.


At least you're showing enough sense to pull out before you lose even more credibility.


----------



## indiefan23

Ya know, how about we start over. This thread got out of control and I'm willing to accept my own part in that. I shouldn't feed trolls but I'm sure we can all relate to getting pulled into something they should not.

While I don't like Kobe or his play much, my stat is not agenda driven. I didn't even know how Kobe's numbers would show up in the stat when I made it nor did I know Kobe would win the championship cuz it was made before the finals. I actually figured everyone would follow the same trend of assisting less when scoring more and expected no one to actually improve.

The stat is reflective of much more then 'kobe took more shots and asisted less' as it's on a game by game basis instead of a yearly average and shows a definitive sloping downward trend of him passing less and less to have bigger and bigger scoring games indicating that when he gets it going he leaves his teammates out of the picture. Again, its based on Kobe's playing style, not him, and I'll hate the playing styles and people who are fooled by it's high PPG for ever.

But that's not hating Kobe. Kobe played better this playoffs then he ever has and finally was able to combine his scoring with an improved playmaking game to totally devastate teams. Once he stopped dribbling on the perimeter and jacking distance shots in the Denver series, it was more or less over before it started. If he really has gotten it, but is a late bloomer, and continues to play that way next year I'll be right there with you saying that it took him 12 years but he finally learned that a 'bit' of humility was all that was needed to take his game to the next level. For a guy to change at 30 after 12 years in the league, and most at the top of it, is an incredible thing that I really can't think of any other player doing. He's yet to do it himself, but I'm venturing to say that its playing less selfishly that will get him up those all time charts then scoring, the most over rated cat there is.

Anyway, if you guys want to talk about it or have questions that's cool. If you want to just say its junk, I'm a hater and ignore my responses to you I'll ignore you and that will be cool too. Cheers.


----------



## 77AJ

Nightmute said:


> Prolific, can you provide an argument as to why players like Magic and Bird are unquestionably better then Kobe?


I'll start with one, Larry Bird.

Magic and Bird both had more impact than Kobe coming into the league. Both Magic and Bird took an NBA league that was sinking in the 70s and spear headed it's success with one of the NBA's greatest rivals all all time. Bird was the leader of his team, he was extremely versatile and clutch. Bird 3x nba champion 3x regular season MVP award winner, 4x all nba defense, Great three point shooter, great post up player, incredible intangibles, amazing court vision, and great passer, and averaged 10 rebounds per game for a career! Birds accolades and abilities are endless.


Here are a couple videos of the greatest Small Forward of All time. And yes that includes LeBron James.


----------



## DaRizzle

> Both Magic and Bird took an NBA league that was sinking in the 70s and spear headed it's success with one of the NBA's greatest rivals all all time.


this has nothing to do with ability...thats a sentimental reason


----------



## Kaas

indiefan23 said:


> While I don't like Kobe or his play much, my stat is not agenda driven. I didn't even know how Kobe's numbers would show up in the stat when I made it nor did I know Kobe would win the championship cuz it was made before the finals. I actually figured everyone would follow the same trend of assisting less when scoring more and expected no one to actually improve.


I genuinely believe you when you say you didn't know how his numbers would show up. But the tone of your assessment of Kobe in the article and in this thread suggests if this stat didn't help you peg him as a ballhog or selfish, you would've kept looking until you found a stat that did. Even if this is not true, and your stat is not agenda driven, that is not what the presentation shows. Everyone has opinions and they are entitled to them, but if you want it to be treated more like a statistical article and less like an editorial you are going to have to tone down some of your personal bias.



> The stat is reflective of much more then 'kobe took more shots and asisted less' as it's on a game by game basis instead of a yearly average and shows a definitive sloping downward trend of him passing less and less to have bigger and bigger scoring games indicating that when he gets it going he leaves his teammates out of the picture. Again, its based on Kobe's playing style, not him, and *I'll hate the playing styles and people who are fooled by it's high PPG for ever.*


OK, the bolded part..I'm sorry but that sounds like you're pretending not to hate Kobe so people don't notice you actually hate him. And the following paragraph is continuing that trend. 

I think you are missing an important part of Kobe Bryant's game that many of his naysayers miss as well (especially those that look mainly at stats). Kobe will do whatever it takes for his team to win the game. If that means jacking it up, he has no problem with that. He often starts just shooting if he realizes the team is getting out of a game, and he tries to Superman them back into it. And you know what, it works a lot of time. Scoring more and passing less on those big scoring nights might get him called selfish on message boards or make him look bad in your stat, but he doesn't care because it helped his team win the game, or stay more competitive than if he distributed more. People forget that his 81 point scoring barrage would have been a loss to the Raptors if he didn't go off. Where I go to school, there are many anti-Kobe fans (I think they feel insulted that the media compares Kobe so often to MJ). Anyways, here are a couple of anecdotes. The night Kobe scoring 81, I told my roommate the moment he entered the door. His immediate response was "Why?" After halftime, Kobe certainly just kept shooting and stopped looking for his teammates, so the comment that insinuated that only a ballhog could reach that number is justifiable. But the response to that comment is "To win." If he kept looking for open teammates, his team would have lost, plain and simple. They went from getting blown out at home, to blowing the opponents out, riding Kobe's shooting and not Kobe's passing all the while.

Just about a month ago or so, another one of my friends commented about Kobe being a ballhog. He thought I would be somewhat receptive to the comment, because I am not afraid to throw criticism Kobe's way despite being a Laker fan. During a game against Denver in the WCF, he said "What the ****? Kobe shot 10 times in the 1st quarter!" And certainly, there have been many a game where Kobe has taken shots I wish he didn't take. But not that game. He was shooting those shots, because he was trying to win. The team was playing like ****, and he knew if he didn't try to jump start the offense, things would get out of hand fast. Basically what I'm trying to say is, when he goes into ballhogging mode, it is almost always because he wants to keep his team in the game. Every team's leader should value winning over stats.


----------



## Kaas

DaRizzle said:


> this has nothing to do with ability...thats a sentimental reason


Unfortunately, sentimentality is going to factor into a top 10 list. Is Jordan the best player of all-time? Most likely, but others have an argument. However, because Jordan helped popularize the sport, he becomes the unquestioned GOAT by the vast majority of the public. Bird and Magic did the same thing (to a lesser extent) and thus get a similar benefit. Unfair? Yes, but it's not going to change.


----------



## 77AJ

DaRizzle said:


> this has nothing to do with ability...thats a sentimental reason


True, but it took the other side of the coin to bring that kind of notoriety. And propel the NBA out of the depths of a sinking commodity. 

Bird and Magic had greatness written all over them coming into the league after their college national championship game, and propelled them selves into the leaders of two of the greatest teams ever in NBA history, that all had to do with ability and charisma.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Prolific Scorer said:


> Do you not understand? Hedo was horrible in the '07 and '08 Playoffs and now in HINDSIGHT you critize me for a blog I wrote last year? I'm beginning to think you aren't that smart.


Wow.

This is coming from a guy who went off on how all the experts disrespected his Magic's chances versus the Cavs.

Thunder 2010 champions!!! 

If I'm wrong, I will say I was in hindsight.


----------



## Game3525

Lmao, Proflic just give it up!


----------



## Chan Ho Nam

so anyways.....

Kobe Bryant is an alright player, he's not bad =|


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> kflo is trying to tell me kobe is awesome because a stat that ranked him 86'th in the league this season, and 48'th in the playoffs, is the best measure of scoring efficiency. What the stat really does is adjust FG% up or down based on how well you shoot free throws and 3's. Technically it looks like its accurate but realistically its just false to claim that hitting free throws at 80% should count as much as making baskets at 60%. A guy like Jose Calderone is going to kill Shaq because he 'never' misses FT's. Efficiency from the field just counts more then the line because people fear it more and its consistent and free throws are totally dependent on the first stat. Calderone can't 'get his' from the line because he can't force fouls at the rate Shaq can.
> 
> If I'm working a job making widgets and with 100 widget resources I can make 57 widgets, however another guy with 50 widgets resources can make 30 widgets, but can never make more then 30 widgets in a week, am I more efficient producer at my job in comparison? No, I am not, at all. That's why they call the stat 'True Shooting Percentage' instead of 'Scoring Efficiency' because the latter would be a total misnomer.
> 
> Efficiency stats are based on a common period (usually time or pace) and go something like this. In 100 possessions how many points do they score? That's their offensive efficiency. Out of how many shots, what proportion do they get in the hoop, that's a percentage. Efficiency is measured in units of production, not percentages. Its a subtle, yet very pertinent difference.
> 
> kflo actually, does not know what he's talking about but keeps pretending he does. Its rather frustrating.


actually, scoring efficiency has to do with how efficiently you score given your scoring attempts. in 100 scoring attempts, how many points do you score. ts% simply converts that to a % by dividing by 2. 

i never made the argument kobe is awesome because his ts% was so high this year. he actually didn't have a great regular season by his standards, although he did play reasonably well within his offensive system. but using fg% is just a horrible basis for real analysis of kobe's scoring. 

and his ts% over the years has been pretty good for someone scoring with his volume. 

i'll ask again, was kobe better in '05 or '06? his scoring went up, his assists went down. i mean, you specifically referenced these years in your blog as the beginnings of evidence of his selfishness. which year did he actually play better? what does your "stat" say? do you think the quality of his teammates today has any bearing on the difference in his shot attempts today vs '06?

you said the lakers won when kobe scored 62 against dallas because dallas shot poorly. kobe had 0 assists. did he play well? did he play well when he scored 81? does your stat in any way answer these questions? which is what i've been asking you. how well did he actually play? right, not as good as 46 ppg would indicate. which tells me nothing still.


----------



## Tragedy

Kaas said:


> Unfortunately, sentimentality is going to factor into a top 10 list. Is Jordan the best player of all-time? Most likely, but others have an argument. However, because Jordan helped popularize the sport, he becomes the unquestioned GOAT by the vast majority of the public. Bird and Magic did the same thing (to a lesser extent) and thus get a similar benefit. Unfair? Yes, but it's not going to change.


Sentimentality is the reason not why Jordan is one of the GOATs, but the reason why people put him so far away from other players.


----------



## Kaas

Tragedy said:


> Sentimentality is the reason not why Jordan is one of the GOATs, but the reason why people put him so far away from other players.


Right. That's what I said.


----------



## Tragedy

hobojoe said:


> Top 10 player ever, *possibly* Top 5 when he's done.





Prolific Scorer said:


> Says the guy who thinks Kobe *should* be top 5 with guys like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Jordan, O'Neal, Duncan.





Prolific Scorer said:


> Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Shaq and even Tim Duncan all belong ahead of Kobe Bryant regardless of what Bryant does the rest of his career. Get it?


Regardless? So let's say Kobe wins 3 more championships. That would still keep Tim Duncan AND Shaq ahead of him? Say he doesn't win again, Tim Duncan is that far ahead of him? I don't think so. And to say with certainty that nothing he does will get him in the top 5, is just stupid.

Currently Kobe is breaking records left and right. At the end of his career he will be top 10 EASY, and like hobojoe says, he could still put himself in the top 5. He's 30 years old, and his game is already gone away from relying a lot on athleticism, and he has great players around him. If the core can be kept in tact they could win a couple more rings. Pau isn't even taking more than 12 shots per game, and Bynum hasn't even played a full season yet.


----------



## Game3525

Well, this isn't the only board owning indie.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135853&page=16


----------



## Tragedy

damn, dude is taking major L's. I think ultimately we'll look like idiots arguing with someone who's clearly extremely biased to the point of insanity.


----------



## hobojoe

Tragedy said:


> Regardless? So let's say Kobe wins 3 more championships. That would still keep Tim Duncan AND Shaq ahead of him? Say he doesn't win again, Tim Duncan is that far ahead of him? I don't think so. And to say with certainty that nothing he does will get him in the top 5, is just stupid.
> 
> Currently Kobe is breaking records left and right. At the end of his career he will be top 10 EASY, and like hobojoe says, he could still put himself in the top 5. He's 30 years old, and his game is already gone away from relying a lot on athleticism, and he has great players around him. If the core can be kept in tact they could win a couple more rings. Pau isn't even taking more than 12 shots per game, and Bynum hasn't even played a full season yet.


Stop this nonsense, this is a slap in the face of NBA history! Kobe can win 5 more titles and not crack the Top 5, he _might_ be Top 10, but only if he doesn't miss a shot in any of those championship runs.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> Regardless? So let's say Kobe wins 3 more championships. That would still keep Tim Duncan AND Shaq ahead of him? Say he doesn't win again, Tim Duncan is that far ahead of him? I don't think so. And to say with certainty that nothing he does will get him in the top 5, is just stupid.


Heh, yea, but using championships to rate how good a player is all time is totally useless. You know this comes from Beantown right? Don't let Boston fans dictate how you evaluate players. They have prattled on about championships for years to prop up players who won on a stacked team in a weak era.

In Kobe's case, I'm not even sure if you can argue him being the best player in the league let alone all time for any year of his career. Even if he has its been debatable and not in a Bird/Magic, they're both so good they're in a league of their own type of way. The only question I answer when comparing greats is this. I'm on a playground, the losing team dies horribly painful deaths, I get to pick x guys, who do I take based on how they played at their absolute peak. All time Kobe does not touch that list and is not even a first, second or third pick now. Actually, I think he's a bench player now.


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, yea, but using championships to rate how good a player is all time is totally useless. You know this comes from Beantown right? Don't let Boston fans dictate how you evaluate players. They have prattled on about championships for years to prop up players who won on a stacked team in a weak era.
> 
> In Kobe's case, I'm not even sure if you can argue him being the best player in the league let alone all time for any year of his career. Even if he has its been debatable and not in a Bird/Magic, they're both so good they're in a league of their own type of way. The only question I answer when comparing greats is this. I'm on a playground, the losing team dies horribly painful deaths, I get to pick x guys, who do I take based on how they played at their absolute peak. All time Kobe does not touch that list and is not even a first, second or third pick now. Actually, I think he's a bench player now.


Kobe's been the best player the year he won the MVP award, 2006, and maybe even this year.

Some guys have prettier stats, but again, Duncan was considered the best for some time and he didn't have the numbers some of his peers did. When it comes to his game, he's much more a complete player than Lebron. Keep in mind Kobe is 30 and played far more games than Lebron the past two years, who's 6 years his junior.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> Kobe's been the best player the year he won the MVP award, 2006, and maybe even this year.
> 
> Some guys have prettier stats, but again, Duncan was considered the best for some time and he didn't have the numbers some of his peers did. When it comes to his game, he's much more a complete player than Lebron. Keep in mind Kobe is 30 and played far more games than Lebron the past two years, who's 6 years his junior.



Hmm... I think Lebron had overtaken him by 2006 honestly. Its not pretty stats. Its just a better game.

CP3 should have won that MVP and he only lost it by a few votes. He got the most so thats what an MVP is basaed on so good for him, but it does not mean he's the best. I don't think he's way more complete then Lebron at all. Kobe's jumper is better but he can't attack the rim, board, or pass like bron at all. Hmm... my 5 man team...

Paul, Wade, Bron, Duncan, Howard (or Shaq, but I don't really count Shaq as in the league anymore except at allstar games).

Is Kobe my 6'th man? Not if we include Shaq. And I would take Nash over Kobe too, maybe over Paul. I think Kobe is my 8'th man. Unless KG is healthy. Then he's my 9'th. Wow, how awesome is it that the NBA is actually getting back to high standards again??? This is a fantastic, fantastic team that would have just looked much worse even only a few years ago.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> actually, scoring efficiency has to do with how efficiently you score given your scoring attempts. in 100 scoring attempts, how many points do you score. ts% simply converts that to a % by dividing by 2.


Efficiency is not a percentage but a measure of production over a period. Efficient things produce more with less time/resources. Its a count. You're confusing shot attempts with minutes played/possessions. Again, a man making 5 widgits with 10 widget parts in a week is not as efficient as a man who makes 40 with 100 in a day. He just is not. Efficiency is a measure of production vs work to produce and work is expended energy over time. I know a lot of people will say the same thing you said as if its right, but its not right.



> i never made the argument kobe is awesome because his ts% was so high this year. he actually didn't have a great regular season by his standards, although he did play reasonably well within his offensive system. but using fg% is just a horrible basis for real analysis of kobe's scoring.
> 
> and his ts% over the years has been pretty good for someone scoring with his volume.


Hmm... I thought Kobe had a much better year then 2006, 7 or 8. Its not cuz of teammates either.



> i'll ask again, was kobe better in '05 or '06? his scoring went up, his assists went down.


i mean, you specifically referenced these years in your blog as the beginnings of evidence of his selfishness. which year did he actually play better? what does your "stat" say? do you think the quality of his teammates today has any bearing on the difference in his shot attempts today vs '06?[/quote]

Its a wash. He started padding his stats and he took it to a new level in 06. I think as an individual his skill peaked in 06 but was nullified by his inability to also develop a team around him.

I think the quality of his teammates has a direct effect on what jacking those shots looks like for his image which Kobe is famously concerned about.



> you said the lakers won when kobe scored 62 against dallas because dallas shot poorly. kobe had 0 assists. did he play well? did he play well when he scored 81? does your stat in any way answer these questions? which is what i've been asking you. how well did he actually play? right, not as good as 46 ppg would indicate. which tells me nothing still.


Well, dude, I think he played selfishly and I've already told you that and by now you have to know that I'm pretty critical of selfish play. I think its terrrible for winning and a terrible thing to build a team around. I've been a player on a team with guys who play like him and while they win games you always resent those cocky guys. They think every win is their fault and every loss is your fault cuz you're just flatly not as good as them. You might respond for a while but eventually you realize the 'team' is all about them and get tired of it. I think its poor. I thought it was poor when AI, Marbury, PP, Jordan (though I was too young to understand it then, I am now) and every other player to play that way does it.

So what do you want? My stat does not indicate if players 'play well' or not but merely indicates how their passing changes with respect to scoring. You can use it with other ideas to help determine if someone is playing well and why, but thats all its supposed to do. You seem to think that if you ask me this question enough tims you're going to get some kind of smoking gun back or something like that. My statement above tells you lots. He played a vastly over rated and purely individualistic game in a team sport and such games hurt his overall results. Its obvious I think this. Do you want to ask things you know the answer to again?


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Hmm... I think Lebron had overtaken him by 2006 honestly. Its not pretty stats. Its just a better game.
> 
> CP3 should have won that MVP and he only lost it by a few votes. He got the most so thats what an MVP is basaed on so good for him, but it does not mean he's the best. I don't think he's way more complete then Lebron at all. Kobe's jumper is better but he can't attack the rim, board, or pass like bron at all. Hmm... my 5 man team...
> 
> Paul, Wade, Bron, Duncan, Howard (or Shaq, but I don't really count Shaq as in the league anymore except at allstar games).
> 
> Is Kobe my 6'th man? Not if we include Shaq. And I would take Nash over Kobe too, maybe over Paul. I think Kobe is my 8'th man. Unless KG is healthy. Then he's my 9'th. Wow, how awesome is it that the NBA is actually getting back to high standards again??? This is a fantastic, fantastic team that would have just looked much worse even only a few years ago.


 
I can respect your starting 5, but to have Kobe possibly behind a 37 year old Shaq, AND Nash at his current play??? Just some funny stuff there.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Efficiency is not a percentage but a measure of production over a period. Efficient things produce more with less time/resources. Its a count. You're confusing shot attempts with minutes played/possessions. Again, a man making 5 widgits with 10 widget parts in a week is not as efficient as a man who makes 40 with 100 in a day. He just is not. Efficiency is a measure of production vs work to produce and work is expended energy over time. I know a lot of people will say the same thing you said as if its right, but its not right.


what do YOU call the measure of production per scoring attempt? i'm ok not calling it scoring efficiency. but it happens to be the measure of exactly that - how efficiently do you use the opportunities you take. call it something else, but it measures what i'm saying it measures. it's CLEARLY a better measure than fg%, and it clearly measures exactly what i'm saying it measures. 

in basketball, teams don't improve their efficiency by playing faster. they improve their efficiency by using their possessions more efficiently. it's not based on work and energy. it's based on production per possessions used. that's what scoring efficiency is as well, and that's what ts% measures. 

noone said scoring efficiency has anything to do with volume of production. that is another component in assessing value. you have to look at both. you used fg%. which is simply a far inferior measure in assessing value. 



indiefan23 said:


> My stat does not indicate if players 'play well' or not


finally. thank you.


----------



## Jesukki

God i hate those Kobe haters that refuse to see the truth. Nash aint got **** on Kobe. And yes championships are important. That makes you a great player. Because you play the game to win. Stats < winning. 

That's the truth.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Why do people have such a set idea about "top 5 players ever" and so on. There is no set criteria so it just depends on what you're talking about. 

If you're talking about peak value and stats, I take Shaquille as the best player and it's not close in my mind. Wilt and Oscar fall into this category because of their great individual seasons. 

If you're talking titles, obviously Bill Russell. 

If you're talking overall resume, then Kareem is number 1 in my book. 

If you're talking about a mixed bag of accomplishments, then Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, Magic, Duncan and so on. 

Kobe is not top 5 in peak value and never will be, he will never have 11 titles, he will never have 6 MVP's. However, at his best he is probably top 10 in peak value, has a handful of titles, and a series of accomplishments and accomplishments to come. The guy is going to finish top 5 in points scored ever, and might pass Jordan for #1 in playoff points. He has countless 1st team appearances on both sides. 

He is going to finish in the same breathe with these guys with a mixed bag of accomplishments. Different strokes for different folks would tell you the order changes depending on preference and criteria, but to be in that class of players means you've become what they call a "top 5 player all-time".


----------



## Cap

WTH? So this guy argues for 23 pages that his stat proves Kobe isn't really all that good when he scores 40+, but then finally comes to the conclusion that his stat "does not indicate if players 'play well' or not".

lmao.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Cap said:


> WTH? So this guy argues for 23 pages that his stat proves Kobe isn't really all that good when he scores 40+, but then finally comes to the conclusion that his stat "does not indicate if players 'play well' or not".
> 
> lmao.


I will be eagerly awaiting a PM from you with an addition to your list.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> I can respect your starting 5, but to have Kobe possibly behind a 37 year old Shaq, AND Nash at his current play??? Just some funny stuff there.


Oh no no no no man... ;0 I'm taking them in their absolute primes.  There is 0 way Shaq's corpse even sniffs my list... unless its the all star game which honestly is the only place Shaq is relevant as a starter anymore. How sad is that. One of the signs of truly getting old is when you can distinctly remember the entire career arc of your fave athlete... just more and more guys like that every day now. You used to watch Shaq cuz he was an athletic marvel and wanted to see how much more he could bring to the league. Now you watch to see how much he's lost. Kinda sad.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> WTH? So this guy argues for 23 pages that his stat proves Kobe isn't really all that good when he scores 40+, but then finally comes to the conclusion that his stat "does not indicate if players 'play well' or not".
> 
> lmao.


No stat indicates if you 'play well' or not, even PER. Are all stats useless? My stat is not even a measurement of play at all, but a measurement of change in play. I don't get the impression you've actually taken the time to understand it honestly.


----------



## indiefan23

Jesukki said:


> God i hate those Kobe haters that refuse to see the truth. Nash aint got **** on Kobe. And yes championships are important. That makes you a great player. Because you play the game to win. Stats < winning.
> 
> That's the truth.


Teams win, not players. Rings 'can' matter sometimes but X player having more rings then another one never means they're better player. Its just a device used by the lazy to arbitrarily prop up another player.

And I take Nash over Kobe for his leadership and passing. If you consider 'offense' instead of just PPG Nash is very much in the discussion. He's an amazing player.


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why do people have such a set idea about "top 5 players ever" and so on. There is no set criteria so it just depends on what you're talking about.
> 
> If you're talking about peak value and stats, I take Shaquille as the best player and it's not close in my mind. Wilt and Oscar fall into this category because of their great individual seasons.
> 
> If you're talking titles, obviously Bill Russell.
> 
> If you're talking overall resume, then Kareem is number 1 in my book.
> 
> If you're talking about a mixed bag of accomplishments, then Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, Magic, Duncan and so on.
> 
> Kobe is not top 5 in peak value and never will be, he will never have 11 titles, he will never have 6 MVP's. However, at his best he is probably top 10 in peak value, has a handful of titles, and a series of accomplishments and accomplishments to come. The guy is going to finish top 5 in points scored ever, and might pass Jordan for #1 in playoff points. He has countless 1st team appearances on both sides.
> 
> He is going to finish in the same breathe with these guys with a mixed bag of accomplishments. Different strokes for different folks would tell you the order changes depending on preference and criteria, but to be in that class of players means you've become what they call a "top 5 player all-time".


I agree with everything but don't really know where he'll end up. I don't think he'll be in the same breath as Jordan nor are any of those guys. I think of players in tiers... ranking by number is stupid for all those reasons. You only get in a tier if its pretty obvious no one below you can touch you. So its like this:

Tier 1
Jordan, cuz he's Jordan.

Tier 2
Magic/Bird/Isiah - I put Isiah in here. Lots of people think he's not top 20. I say bah. Isiah the GM has hurt his legacy, Isiah the player was unstoppable. Shaq would be here if he wasn't lazy and focused on scoring. He could be #1 really if he had committed his whole career. I think Lebron is approaching this but he's not here yet.

Tier 3
Dream/Duncan/Pippen/Shaq, it starts to become a big club

Tier 4
I think kobe is here maybe... with guys like Reggie and Drexler 'n lots of other dudes. If he continues playing the way he did in the finals, he's going to move up. Say, if Kobe averaged his finals numbers for a season, its going to affect the way he's viewed. I'm sure some of the hyper Kobe fans are going to think I'm crazy, but I'm cool with that. Unless you rate Kobe as high as he can possibly be rated you think people are always nuts anyway.


----------



## Tragedy

Wait, Kobe is below Pippen now, and with Reggie and Drexler? And he has to win more than 1 championship as the main man to pass them? This just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## Tragedy

And why doesn't having Pippen in tier 3 drop jordan somewhat? and whaaaaaat @ shaq being higher if he focused on scoring? I think everyone would agree that scoring wasn't the issue, it was the defensive end and conditioning.


----------



## King Joseus

Tragedy said:


> And why doesn't having Pippen in tier 3 drop jordan somewhat? and whaaaaaat @ shaq being higher if he focused on scoring? I think everyone would agree that scoring wasn't the issue, it was the defensive end and conditioning.


I think he meant if he wasn't lazy AND wasn't focused on scoring.

Carry on.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> what do YOU call the measure of production per scoring attempt?


I call it... 'true shooting percentage'. ;0



> i'm ok not calling it scoring efficiency. but it happens to be the measure of exactly that
> how efficiently do you use the opportunities you take. call it something else, but it measures what i'm saying it measures. it's CLEARLY a better measure than fg%, and it clearly measures exactly what i'm saying it measures.


No, it does not. Simply because a shot is not really a scoring attempt. A possession is. If you wanted to truly measure scoring efficiency you'd have to figure in dimes too for that matter because they directly influence points scored. +/-, a stat I really dislike, is a better measure of scoring efficiency, if it was a legit stat to start with.



> in basketball, teams don't improve their efficiency by playing faster. they improve their efficiency by using their possessions more efficiently. it's not based on work and energy. it's based on production per possessions used. that's what scoring efficiency is as well, and that's what ts% measures.noone said scoring efficiency has anything to do with volume of production. that is another component in assessing value. you have to look at both. you used fg%. which is simply a far inferior measure in assessing value.


Umm... I said it did and I'm correct. Efficiency is a measure of production, not a percentage of success. Its based on work vs production. TS% measures shot making, not points at all. Volume counts in efficiency and TS% ignores points entirely in it's result. Is Joel Anthony the most efficient scorer in basketball? No, he is not, because he only scores 2 points a game though he plays more minutes and puts in much more work then lots of people to get those two points. He's a horribly inefficient scorer because he's horribly inefficient at scoring points, however when he tries to score points, he can make his one shot most of the time.



> finally. thank you.


Finally what? ;0 Seriously, you're acting as if you've made some point or something? I never claimed the stat said if he 'played well overall'. No stat indicates if a guy plays well. It for sure shows that one part of his game is incredibly weak. Guess what, 35 PPG does not indicate he played well. For the area of play that my stat DOES cover yes, it shows Kobe plays at a pretty all timey horrible level. You basically have 0 point.

I mean, why not be a man and just say what you mean instead of asking an irrelevant question over and over? I said 

"Hey guys, this is my stat. It measures assist production with respect to scoring at increasingly high outputs."

And you ask "Oh yea? Does your 'stat' show if Kobe played well overall?" which is just an asanine question to ask someone who just told you what his stat actually shows.

Now, if you'd like to actually talk about things I said instead of what you wish I said so so you can have something to take down lets talk. I don't even know what you're getting at... what is it? Are you trying to say all stats are useless? That can't be true cuz you use them to prop up Kobe. Oh, I get it... you're saying all stats are useless unless they're making a player you like look good. Understood!


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> And why doesn't having Pippen in tier 3 drop jordan somewhat? and whaaaaaat @ shaq being higher if he focused on scoring? I think everyone would agree that scoring wasn't the issue, it was the defensive end and conditioning.


Cuz Jordan is largely responsible for Pippen. Why was Pippen GOAT style defender? Because he practiced defending the GOAT scorer every day for over a decade. I honestly think the fact that Pippen is in tier 3 is an argument for Jordan to go higher, not lower.

This Jordan had Pippen arguement about Kobe is so incredibly weak. The analagy does not even make sense unless you reverse it. Kobe had Shaq. And Pippen had Jordan. Jordan had pippen. And Shaq had Kobe. LA was Shaq's team make 0 mistakes about it.


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Cuz Jordan is largely responsible for Pippen. Why was Pippen GOAT style defender? Because he practiced defending the GOAT scorer every day for over a decade. I honestly think the fact that Pippen is in tier 3 is an argument for Jordan to go higher, not lower.
> 
> This Jordan had Pippen arguement about Kobe is so incredibly weak. The analagy does not even make sense unless you reverse it. Kobe had Shaq. And Pippen had Jordan. Jordan had pippen. And Shaq had Kobe. LA was Shaq's team make 0 mistakes about it.


So if he was largely responsible for Pippen, how could Pippen be in tier 3?


----------



## hobojoe

Jamel Irief said:


> Wow.
> 
> This is coming from a guy who went off on how all the experts disrespected his Magic's chances versus the Cavs.
> 
> Thunder 2010 champions!!!
> 
> If I'm wrong, I will say I was in hindsight.


This just gets better and better. Notice he hasn't posted since his *** kicking in this thread, but don't worry he's been logged on. He's been too busy issuing me an "infraction" for insulting a poster in this thread to be posting. He's also had enough time to delete his blog (or block me from reading it). Classic stuff. He can't even abuse his power right :laugh:


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> No stat indicates if you 'play well' or not, even PER. Are all stats useless? My stat is not even a measurement of play at all, but a measurement of change in play. I don't get the impression you've actually taken the time to understand it honestly.


No actually, PER and even crappy EFF stats give a good indication of how well you play, on average. The fact that Bryant's 40+ point games significantly increases his team's winning %'s (and it's not just against crappy teams) has already invalidated your argument. But you already knew that. Or maybe you didn't, too busy still learning C++?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> I agree with everything but don't really know where he'll end up. I don't think he'll be in the same breath as Jordan nor are any of those guys. I think of players in tiers... ranking by number is stupid for all those reasons. You only get in a tier if its pretty obvious no one below you can touch you. So its like this:
> 
> Tier 1
> Jordan, cuz he's Jordan.
> 
> Tier 2
> Magic/Bird/Isiah - I put Isiah in here. Lots of people think he's not top 20. I say bah. Isiah the GM has hurt his legacy, Isiah the player was unstoppable. Shaq would be here if he wasn't lazy and focused on scoring. He could be #1 really if he had committed his whole career. I think Lebron is approaching this but he's not here yet.
> 
> Tier 3
> Dream/Duncan/Pippen/Shaq, it starts to become a big club
> 
> Tier 4
> I think kobe is here maybe... with guys like Reggie and Drexler 'n lots of other dudes. If he continues playing the way he did in the finals, he's going to move up. Say, if Kobe averaged his finals numbers for a season, its going to affect the way he's viewed. I'm sure some of the hyper Kobe fans are going to think I'm crazy, but I'm cool with that. Unless you rate Kobe as high as he can possibly be rated you think people are always nuts anyway.


didn't you say you were too young to realize when jordan was a selfish gunner, yet you remember how "unstoppable" isiah was?


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> No actually, PER and even crappy EFF stats give a good indication of how well you play, on average. The fact that Bryant's 40+ point games significantly increases his team's winning %'s (and it's not just against crappy teams) has already invalidated your argument. But you already knew that. Or maybe you didn't, too busy still learning C++?


Heh, are you trying to knock my profession that provides me a kick *** lifestyle with little work? ;0 What '*grade*' are you in man? ;0

PER is heavily based on offense which is only half the game and it does not tell you if a guy 'plays well' cuz a guy padding his stats on a horrible team will take all the shots and make all the passes, have a great PER and still not really be playing to win. Or a guy who plays ultra limited minutes, like Steven Hill, who's PER is over 3 times Lebron James'. A guy on a good team with lots of good players who are balanced will automatically have lower PERs.

Zach Randolph's PER is better then Melo's, Billups, David Lee, Gerald Wallace, Marcus Camby, Joe Johnson, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Josh Smith, Ben Gordon. If what you're saying is true, Zach Randolph was playing better then all those guys this season. But thats not true, at all, and you're not correct, at all. So far, via your logic, you've stated Kobe is the 86'th most efficient scorer in the league and that STeven Hill plays 3 times 'more well' then Lebron James.

Kobe's top 10 scoring games come against 33 win teams. They suck, kflo. They came against horrible, terrible, dysfunctional teams. You can sit there and say it but you're making your information up and I actually am stating real numbers. A big difference.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> didn't you say you were too young to realize when jordan was a selfish gunner, yet you remember how "unstoppable" isiah was?


Uh... Jordan joined the NBA in 1984. He changed him game a lot by 1989, when Isiah was winning rings, and when I was a lot older then 1984.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> So if he was largely responsible for Pippen, how could Pippen be in tier 3?


Pippen's still a fantastic player. I'm not taking anything away from him cuz he played with Michael. I'm not really taking anything away from anyone for playing with other guys so long as they had the talent.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> Wait, Kobe is below Pippen now, and with Reggie and Drexler? And he has to win more than 1 championship as the main man to pass them? This just keeps getting better and better.


I already said I don't rank on championships at all. I don't care if you win 10 or 1, winning a chapionship is only fractionally due to your talent, and that fraction is pretty small.


----------



## Game3525

Lmao, can someone tell me why Proflic is handing out infractions? He is the one who has insulted everyone in this thread.


----------



## Kneejoh

I love how you're saying that Kobe didn't influence or mentor anybody in his career. Because it's wrong, just look at team USA and how every single star player took something from Kobe. He mentored them in the Olympics and Dwight, Lebron, Wade and Melo all went back to their teams and had career years. They can thank Kobe for it since he mentored them in China.


----------



## kflo

3 facts:

i'm not cap

PER gives much better insight into how well someone has played than your stat

ts% gives a much better indication of how efficiently someone scored than fg%. 

these are all facts


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Uh... Jordan joined the NBA in 1984. He changed him game a lot by 1989, when Isiah was winning rings, and when I was a lot older then 1984.


in what way exactly was isiah "unstoppable" in 1989?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> I call it... 'true shooting percentage'. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. Simply because a shot is not really a scoring attempt. A possession is. If you wanted to truly measure scoring efficiency you'd have to figure in dimes too for that matter because they directly influence points scored. +/-, a stat I really dislike, is a better measure of scoring efficiency, if it was a legit stat to start with.


ts% measures how efficiently you score in your scoring attempts. period. if you can't grasp that i'm sorry. it measures what it measures. it doesn't measure overall offensive efficiency, it doesn't measure total production, it measures how efficiently you use your attempts. it's a simple concept. and it measures this far better than fg%, which you seem to prefer. 



indiefan23 said:


> Umm... I said it did and I'm correct. Efficiency is a measure of production, not a percentage of success. Its based on work vs production. TS% measures shot making, not points at all. Volume counts in efficiency and TS% ignores points entirely in it's result. Is Joel Anthony the most efficient scorer in basketball? No, he is not, because he only scores 2 points a game though he plays more minutes and puts in much more work then lots of people to get those two points. He's a horribly inefficient scorer because he's horribly inefficient at scoring points, however when he tries to score points, he can make his one shot most of the time.


yes, ts% does not measure points. thanks. and neither does fg%. one measures how efficiently you use your attempts better than the other. 




indiefan23 said:


> Finally what? ;0 Seriously, you're acting as if you've made some point or something? I never claimed the stat said if he 'played well overall'. No stat indicates if a guy plays well. It for sure shows that one part of his game is incredibly weak. Guess what, 35 PPG does not indicate he played well. For the area of play that my stat DOES cover yes, it shows Kobe plays at a pretty all timey horrible level. You basically have 0 point.


what area of play DOES your stat cover? what exactly did kobe do at an "all-timey" horrible level? 

a stat like PER gives alot of insight into how well a player statistically contributed. your stat measures how a players assists changed as scoring increased to high levels, but gives NO real insight into how well they played. your stat would indicate kobe didn't play well when he scored 62 against dallas, or 81 against toronto. which you seem to believe. which is sad.



indiefan23 said:


> I mean, why not be a man and just say what you mean instead of asking an irrelevant question over and over? I said
> 
> "Hey guys, this is my stat. It measures assist production with respect to scoring at increasingly high outputs."
> 
> And you ask "Oh yea? Does your 'stat' show if Kobe played well overall?" which is just an asanine question to ask someone who just told you what his stat actually shows.


because all you're then left with is your own interpretation of what it means. the stat itself tells you very little. you go on to attribute qualities to the stat. selfish. stat padder. destructive. 



indiefan23 said:


> Now, if you'd like to actually talk about things I said instead of what you wish I said so so you can have something to take down lets talk. I don't even know what you're getting at... what is it? Are you trying to say all stats are useless? That can't be true cuz you use them to prop up Kobe. Oh, I get it... you're saying all stats are useless unless they're making a player you like look good. Understood!


i'm saying YOUR stat is not very useful. and YOU make it worse by interpreting it solely to fit your own view of kobe.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

lmao, laughable. I'm going to make up a stat that equates Lamar's unselfishness based on the amount of candy bars per day he eats, his ft% and the amount of cups of water he drinks when he is resting on the bench.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

I just read the article.. I gotta say its just ehhhh.. he has some good points, but he just comes off as a hater to me. He wrote that entire article to say Kobe's a selfish player. Cool, sure.. but you still have to be GREAT to score 60 points 5 times, 50 points 23 times and 40 points 96 times, I don't care how selfish you are. And if you have 4 rings? Then you are obviously doing something right. 

But the undeniable reason about why this article lost all credibility? The moment I read that Smush Parker is somehow comparable to Scottie Pippen. he had ups, I loved watching him... But jesus man.. Smush is so far from Scottie it's insane, and the argument that since Kobe wasn't able to make Smush the next Scottie Pippen makes him selfish then I don't know if this guy has any reason to be a journalist, if that's even what he calls himself.. I mean he hails the amazing Dwyane Wade, but must have forgot that when Smush was on the Lakers was the only time he was even relevant. (Does anyone remember him on the Heat? Ya.. Didn't think so)

It was a Laker Hater or Kobe Hater article, he started off with a point, and somewhere during the article lost that point and started bashing. And that's when you lose me...


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> Pippen's still a fantastic player. I'm not taking anything away from him cuz he played with Michael. I'm not really taking anything away from anyone for playing with other guys so long as they had the talent.


I just skimmed it and noticed a statistical error in the first 2 seconds. Kobe had 3 assists in the game against the Knicks, not zero like you state. Some sloppy writing as well, you might want to clean that up.

On the plus side, your piece might have some solid comedic value with awful generalizations like this: 

“When Kobe hits shots early it appears he thinks of sports center and forgets his team exists”


You can find some games here and there to criticize his decision making, shot selection, like the first game of the 07/08 season where he was just gunning, but what does the entire picture look like? He is as skilled an offensive player as you will find, completely dynamic, and a history of contributing a ton to very good offenses.


----------



## indiefan23

thug_immortal8 said:


> I love how you're saying that Kobe didn't influence or mentor anybody in his career. Because it's wrong, just look at team USA and how every single star player took something from Kobe. He mentored them in the Olympics and Dwight, Lebron, Wade and Melo all went back to their teams and had career years. They can thank Kobe for it since he mentored them in China.


Heh, what hype. Kobe didn't mentor a veritable all star team from being average to solid contributors, they were already all stars. The team helped a lot of people's games, there is no doubt in that, but hey hey, here's a clue. Maybe Kobe got something from Lebron, Wade and Melo when he saw how teammates who lead behave and realized these kids were doing a better job of it then him. Kobe was in such a bubble of yes men for his entire career, they even got rid of Shaq for him, that he'd never been exposed to any way to win except 'taking over the game'. I love how Lebron makes one comment about being surprised by Kobe's work ethic and suddenly it's Kobe who made Lebron good. Did team USA help people? Yes. Was Kobe part of that? Yes. Did he make Lebron James good? No, Lebron James was good by his first NBA game. Really, really good. Wade already had a ring. Bron already made the finals. Howard already was a beast and made the leap the year before and has had nothing close to a career year yet. Kobe didn't make all stars all stars man.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> I agree with everything but don't really know where he'll end up. I don't think he'll be in the same breath as Jordan nor are any of those guys. I think of players in tiers... ranking by number is stupid for all those reasons. You only get in a tier if its pretty obvious no one below you can touch you. So its like this:
> 
> Tier 1
> Jordan, cuz he's Jordan.
> 
> Tier 2
> Magic/Bird/Isiah - I put Isiah in here. Lots of people think he's not top 20. I say bah. Isiah the GM has hurt his legacy, Isiah the player was unstoppable. Shaq would be here if he wasn't lazy and focused on scoring. He could be #1 really if he had committed his whole career. I think Lebron is approaching this but he's not here yet.
> 
> Tier 3
> Dream/Duncan/Pippen/Shaq, it starts to become a big club
> 
> Tier 4
> I think kobe is here maybe... with guys like Reggie and Drexler 'n lots of other dudes. If he continues playing the way he did in the finals, he's going to move up. Say, if Kobe averaged his finals numbers for a season, its going to affect the way he's viewed. I'm sure some of the hyper Kobe fans are going to think I'm crazy, but I'm cool with that. Unless you rate Kobe as high as he can possibly be rated you think people are always nuts anyway.



Did you just lump Kobe in with Reggie Miller? Are you kidding me? This has to be a joke..


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> I just skimmed it and noticed a statistical error in the first 2 seconds. Kobe had 3 assists in the game against the Knicks, not zero like you state. Some sloppy writing as well, you might want to clean that up.


Heh, please. That's a typo, not a statistical error. I said

"Such a game is his 61 with 0 dimes and 3 boards vs NYK." and got the numbers switched around.




> On the plus side, your piece might have some solid comedic value with awful generalizations like this:
> 
> “When Kobe hits shots early it appears he thinks of sports center and forgets his team exists”
> 
> You can find some games here and there to criticize his decision making, shot selection, like the first game of the 07/08 season where he was just gunning, but what does the entire picture look like? He is as skilled an offensive player as you will find, completely dynamic, and a history of contributing a ton to very good offenses.


Yea, or I can look at all his high scoring games, which I did, and create a statistic that shows definitively that when he scores more points his assists drop more and more, which I did. He's a skilled offensive player, but not as you will find. Kobe's jumper is good, especially his ability to pull up off the dribble, but he's still not better then Wade/James/Jordan. Even Steve Nash (who has a better jumper) is a better offensive player then Kobe man. Passing is part of offense. Kobe struggles to impact the game at a high level in any other way except scoring, which means rather then being dynamic, he's kind of one dimensional.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Did you just lump Kobe in with Reggie Miller? Are you kidding me? This has to be a joke..


Heh, this is what I'm talking about. Reggie is arguably the best shooter of all time and you're insulted cuz I said both of them are not on Dream's, Shaq's or Duncan's level. They aren't. Its not an insult to Kobe in any way shape or form to to be mentioned with other truly amazing players and you're like "oh man, this is a joke." Seriously.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> 3 facts:
> PER gives much better insight into how well someone has played than your stat


Heh, and that's relevant how? I wasn't attempting to improve on PER. I was attempting to show trends in passing expressed at increasing levels of scoring and achieved those goals quite nicely.



> ts% gives a much better indication of how efficiently someone scored than fg%.


Heh, yes, but is in no way a good way to measure who the most efficient players in the league are and your 'fact' above is not what you claimed at all. Also, I never claimed the opposite of your 'facts'. I mean, are you going to comment on anything I said at all, or just make statements about things that you made up and pretend I said them?


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> in what way exactly was isiah "unstoppable" in 1989?


Umm... well he played basketball and was so good at it that he could not be stopped from scoring or making the right pass? Its not like I only started watching ball either that year. You're so busy trying to 'catch' me by asking vague questions you've really not contributed anything yourself.

Isiah cut defenses to pieces. If he wasn't hurt in the finals they three peat and if the Celtics were not totally incredible in the mid 80's they probably get back in in 87 too.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, this is what I'm talking about. Reggie is arguably the best shooter of all time and you're insulted cuz I said both of them are not on Dream's, Shaq's or Duncan's level. They aren't. Its not an insult to Kobe in any way shape or form to to be mentioned with other truly amazing players and you're like "oh man, this is a joke." Seriously.


Yes, Reggie is arguably the best shooter of all time, but to compare him to Kobe is a slap in the face to every knowladgable NBA fan out there. Reggie wasn't a truely amazing player, he was a good player. He only made the third team once in his career, whereas Kobe's made the first team seven times, and has ten all NBA teams overall. Reggie's never been in the top ten for MVP voting either. I would LOVE to hear an argument for Reggie being on Kobe's level, at the very least it would keep me entertained.

In case you didn't know, Reggie Miller is a career 18/3/3 guy, Kobe's averages destroy his with 25/5/5, and Kobe's defensive impact blows Reggie's out of the water aswell. Sure, he had some great clutch preformances, but Kobe isn't a slouch in that department either. Reggie never won a 'ship, and Kobe's got four. There isn't an argument for them to even be on the same planet, please tell me that you were kidding.

Oh, and Drexler and Pippen being equal to Kobe? Thats not quite as bad as comparing him to Reggie, but still pretty illogical to say the least.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, this is what I'm talking about. Reggie is arguably the best shooter of all time and you're insulted cuz I said both of them are not on Dream's, Shaq's or Duncan's level. They aren't. Its not an insult to Kobe in any way shape or form to to be mentioned with other truly amazing players and you're like "oh man, this is a joke." Seriously.


Reggie never averaged more than 25 points per game in a season, never averaged more than 4 assists per game in a season or 4 rebounds per game in a season. He also never won a title. 

Reggie's very best season is clearly inferior to Kobe's career averages. And Kobe has 4 titles to boot. 

Reggie isn't close to Kobe. Peak value, overall resume or titles.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... well he played basketball and was so good at it that he could not be stopped from scoring or making the right pass? Its not like I only started watching ball either that year. You're so busy trying to 'catch' me by asking vague questions you've really not contributed anything yourself.
> 
> Isiah cut defenses to pieces. If he wasn't hurt in the finals they three peat and if the Celtics were not totally incredible in the mid 80's they probably get back in in 87 too.


Isiah was never unstoppable, deal with it. Unless of course, you think that there's five unstoppable players in the league at any given time.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, please. That's a typo, not a statistical error. I said
> 
> "Such a game is his 61 with 0 dimes and 3 boards vs NYK." and got the numbers switched around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, or I can look at all his high scoring games, which I did, and create a statistic that shows definitively that when he scores more points his assists drop more and more, which I did. He's a skilled offensive player, but not as you will find. Kobe's jumper is good, especially his ability to pull up off the dribble, but he's still not better then Wade/James/Jordan. Even Steve Nash (who has a better jumper) is a better offensive player then Kobe man. Passing is part of offense. Kobe struggles to impact the game at a high level in any other way except scoring, which means rather then being dynamic, he's kind of one dimensional.


Are you talking about a 1996 Kobe Bryant? Because then this would all make sense. Kobe's one dimensional? Then why the hell has he been top five for rebounds and assists for his position every year since 2000, and why has he been nominated to countless all defense teams? Kobe's jumper isn't better than LeBron's and Wade's? Is that why he hits a higher percentage of them then they do? Or is it because he also shoots three's at a higher clip. Honestley, are you just making things up?


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, please. That's a typo, not a statistical error. I said
> 
> "Such a game is his 61 with 0 dimes and 3 boards vs NYK." and got the numbers switched around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, or I can look at all his high scoring games, which I did, and create a statistic that shows definitively that when he scores more points his assists drop more and more, which I did. He's a skilled offensive player, but not as you will find. Kobe's jumper is good, especially his ability to pull up off the dribble, but he's still not better then Wade/James/Jordan. Even Steve Nash (who has a better jumper) is a better offensive player then Kobe man. Passing is part of offense. *Kobe struggles to impact the game at a high level in any other way except scoring, which means rather then being dynamic, he's kind of one dimensional.*



:laugh: Funny stuff.


Isn't it kind of common sense that a player who goes way over his normal scoring average probably isn't racking up a ton of assists? Why does a player go way over his scoring average in the first place? It's usually attributed to the player picking up slack, riding a hot hand, or both. Your piece isn't breaking any ground, and like your post above, is mostly garbage.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt

Kobe = Reggie?

Come on man. Now it's just obvious.


----------



## GNG

Game3525 said:


> Lmao, Proflic just give it up!


Prolific, why did give this post an infraction?


----------



## GNG

hobojoe said:


> Says the guy with one blog post, and it's about how the Magic should've traded Turkoglu. I'm jealous of your ability to provide that type of insight. Unfortunately for me my posts come off to you as "kissing ***" because you're incapable of being objective when it comes to the Magic, so in contrast that's how I come off. On top of the fact you know nothing about basketball to begin with. Being a homer, not knowing what you're talking about and being an e-thug is a really bad combination. I don't even need to dig up old posts to discredit you, this thread alone does enough. If only these were the good old days with me, JNice and lachlanwood. You know, when I could actually post on the Magic forum and expect an intelligent conversation.
> 
> There's really no reason to cry over Kobe Bryant, or the fact that this thread with the stat you thought was so brilliant backfired miserably. Kobe is great. I don't like it either, but it's true. Might as well start accepting it.


Prolific, why did you give this post an infraction?


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Yes, Reggie is arguably the best shooter of all time, but to compare him to Kobe is a slap in the face to every knowladgable NBA fan out there. Reggie wasn't a truely amazing player, he was a good player. He only made the third team once in his career, whereas Kobe's made the first team seven times, and has ten all NBA teams overall. Reggie's never been in the top ten for MVP voting either. I would LOVE to hear an argument for Reggie being on Kobe's level, at the very least it would keep me entertained.
> 
> In case you didn't know, Reggie Miller is a career 18/3/3 guy, Kobe's averages destroy his with 25/5/5, and Kobe's defensive impact blows Reggie's out of the water aswell. Sure, he had some great clutch preformances, but Kobe isn't a slouch in that department either. Reggie never won a 'ship, and Kobe's got four. There isn't an argument for them to even be on the same planet, please tell me that you were kidding.


Menh... Reggie was a gamer, a winner and didn't pad his stats like Kobe did. He was a leader and didn't feud with his players. It is, after all, my list, and I rate someone's leadership, which Reggie had in spades and Kobe lacks, pretty highly. No arguments about Kobe, that are valid in any case, claim he's not talented. Reggie came closer then anyone to beating MJ. Reggie wasn't a horrible defender at all and spent his prime winning and overachieving. To me, that counts, a lot.



> Oh, and Drexler and Pippen being equal to Kobe? Thats not quite as bad as comparing him to Reggie, but still pretty illogical to say the least.


Like I said, its in tiers. Its not saying everyone is the same. Drexler was a great, great player, but he wasn't Kobe good. I'd take Pippen over Kobe any day of the week though. He could dominate a game without taking a shot and had an unquestionable team attitude... players like that are rare and special.


----------



## Game3525

How is Reggie a winner when he never won anything, Kobe on the other hand has been a better individual player and won more. It is really no comparison, Reggie might not even make the hall of fame.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Are you talking about a 1996 Kobe Bryant? Because then this would all make sense. Kobe's one dimensional? Then why the hell has he been top five for rebounds and assists for his position every year since 2000, and why has he been nominated to countless all defense teams? Kobe's jumper isn't better than LeBron's and Wade's? Is that why he hits a higher percentage of them then they do? Or is it because he also shoots three's at a higher clip. Honestley, are you just making things up?


Oh stop.

Kobe gets less assists then Delonte West in his second season and you're on his jock. Among his peers he is not elite at much besides scoring and its a fact. Yes, he's one dimensional. When I watch Kobe play he either plays a team game or goes into Kobe mode and I don't see him able to blend the two. To his credit, which I have no problems giving, he's getting better at it, but the guy has been pretty poor for his entire career at being able to take over with anything but scoring. That last game of the Denver series was a Kobe you see rarely. If he showed up more I'd be riding his jock right with you.

And I said his jumper 'was' better then their's... maybe you should not just assume everything is hate? It is possible to not like someone's game for valid reasons you know.


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> Reggie never averaged more than 25 points per game in a season, never averaged more than 4 assists per game in a season or 4 rebounds per game in a season. He also never won a title.
> 
> Reggie's very best season is clearly inferior to Kobe's career averages. And Kobe has 4 titles to boot.
> 
> Reggie isn't close to Kobe. Peak value, overall resume or titles.


Heh, yea, and Reggie never forced out the best player on his team at the first signs of him getting old either. Reggie never went on the radio and tore his team down, demanded a trade and made public statements telling guys on his team they were jokes either.

You guys are hilarious. "Hey, this is why I like chocolate ice cream. I'm allergic to nuts, and it doesn't have any." WTF! HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE PEANUT BUTTER FUDGE ICE CREAM??? ITS THE BEST! FUDGE IS WAY BETTER THEN CHOCOLATE!" Well, I don't like peanuts, they make me die. "YOU IDIOT. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE PEANUTS. FUDGE IS BETTER THEN CHOCOLATE!"

Yes, if you ignore all of Kobe's negative points and highlight the negative aspects of other players, Kobe will look better. I agree. If I'm a pure Kobe hater, which I'm not, explain to me how being a Kobe homer is better? I don't pretend that i've been 100% correct on everything, but I've been pretty close. Some of you have made some pretty crazy claims in here. Someone even tried to explain how taking >40 shots is good strategy when the all timey record for >40 shots taken by one play is 4-15, and the record for top 10 FGA is 2-10. ;0

Like, I make a case thats pretty convincing that Kobe does something that hurts ball teams and some people calim he does not, while otehrs claim its not in fact negative. Its a lot of things... u guys refuse to budge, yet I'm irrational?


----------



## bballlife

Don't quit your day job.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, yea, and Reggie never forced out the best player on his team at the first signs of him getting old either. Reggie never went on the radio and tore his team down, demanded a trade and made public statements telling guys on his team they were jokes either.


This has what to do with playing ability? Ironically, it was these events you listed that aided in the Lakers returning to championship form. Maybe if Reggie had done those things, he would have won a title? Either way, he was far inferior as a player. All that stuff you listed would be relevant if they put Kobe and his teams in bad situations where they struggled to win. It hasn't. It's actually helped his teams win if anything. 

Shaquille turned on every franchise he played for too. Would you put a far inferior player with no titles like say, Patrick Ewing, on the same tier with Shaquille simply because of immaturity? I hope not. 



indiefan23 said:


> Like, I make a case thats pretty convincing that Kobe does something that hurts ball teams and some people calim he does not, while otehrs claim its not in fact negative. Its a lot of things... u guys refuse to budge, yet I'm irrational?


You said Kobe Bryant is on the same level as Reggie Miller because Kobe expressed how unhappy he was on the radio during the offseason of a losing season. 

Yes, that's irrational.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, are you trying to knock my profession that provides me a kick *** lifestyle with little work? ;0 What '*grade*' are you in man? ;0
> 
> PER is heavily based on offense which is only half the game and it does not tell you if a guy 'plays well' cuz a guy padding his stats on a horrible team will take all the shots and make all the passes, have a great PER and still not really be playing to win. Or a guy who plays ultra limited minutes, like Steven Hill, who's PER is over 3 times Lebron James'. A guy on a good team with lots of good players who are balanced will automatically have lower PERs.


I already explained this, you're confused. 



> Zach Randolph's PER is better then Melo's, Billups, David Lee, Gerald Wallace, Marcus Camby, Joe Johnson, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Josh Smith, Ben Gordon. If what you're saying is true, Zach Randolph was playing better then all those guys this season. But thats not true, at all, and you're not correct, at all. So far, via your logic, you've stated Kobe is the 86'th most efficient scorer in the league and that STeven Hill plays 3 times 'more well' then Lebron James.


I already explained this, you're confused. 



> Kobe's top 10 scoring games come against 33 win teams. They suck, kflo. They came against horrible, terrible, dysfunctional teams. You can sit there and say it but you're making your information up and I actually am stating real numbers. A big difference.



I already explained this, you're confused. 

People are literally laughing at your posts.


----------



## hobojoe

Sir Patchwork said:


> Reggie never averaged more than 25 points per game in a season, never averaged more than 4 assists per game in a season or 4 rebounds per game in a season. He also never won a title.
> 
> Reggie's very best season is clearly inferior to Kobe's career averages. And Kobe has 4 titles to boot.
> 
> Reggie isn't close to Kobe. Peak value, overall resume or titles.



More importantly, Reggie averaged 3.0 assists per game for his career but 3.6 assists per game in his 8 40+ point games.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Prolific, why did give this post an infraction?





Cinco de Mayo said:


> Prolific, why did give this post an infraction?


Because he is embarrassed and mad.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Oh stop.
> 
> Kobe gets less assists then Delonte West in his second season and you're on his jock. Among his peers he is not elite at much besides scoring and its a fact. Yes, he's one dimensional. When I watch Kobe play he either plays a team game or goes into Kobe mode and I don't see him able to blend the two. To his credit, which I have no problems giving, he's getting better at it, but the guy has been pretty poor for his entire career at being able to take over with anything but scoring. That last game of the Denver series was a Kobe you see rarely. If he showed up more I'd be riding his jock right with you.
> 
> And I said his jumper 'was' better then their's... maybe you should not just assume everything is hate? It is possible to not like someone's game for valid reasons you know.


phil jackson:



> 2001 playoffs, when asked to compare Kobe to Michael: "Kobe's become the floor leader of a basketball team that was kind of looking for that nature of a player, who could not only be a scorer, but also be a playmaker or consistently make big plays at critical times. So it was very important for Kobe to step into that role that he was envisioned at. I've always held the bar up very high for Kobe, and he's not only reached that bar, but he's jumping over the top of it right now."
> 
> More comparison and contrast: "I think it's the best that I've ever seen a player of mine play with an overall court game. I'm asking him to do so much, and he's accomplishing it. I never asked Michael to be a playmaker. That's the greatest player that I've ever had, that I could consider the greatest player in the game, and I never asked him to be a playmaker in those terms. I asked him to be playmaker when he was doubled or tripled. But Kobe has to set up the offense, to advance the ball, to read the defense, to make other players happy, and he's doing a great job of that."


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> This has what to do with playing ability? Ironically, it was these events you listed that aided in the Lakers returning to championship form. Maybe if Reggie had done those things, he would have won a title? Either way, he was far inferior as a player. All that stuff you listed would be relevant if they put Kobe and his teams in bad situations where they struggled to win. It hasn't. It's actually helped his teams win if anything.


Heh, I disagree. Being on a stacked team has helped Kobe win. Kobe spent his prime losing, Reggie winning, and Kobe had an integral role to play in his team losing. He's cost his franchise 2 titles, 04/08 with the same selfish play.



> Shaquille turned on every franchise he played for too. Would you put a far inferior player with no titles like say, Patrick Ewing, on the same tier with Shaquille simply because of immaturity? I hope not.


Yea, that's why Kobe admitted he handled the situation immaturely. The Kobe had nothing to do with Shaq being traded line is total BS. Shaq wanted to stay. Kobe was going to go to the Clippers if they kept Shaq. Its obvious.



> You said Kobe Bryant is on the same level as Reggie Miller because Kobe expressed how unhappy he was on the radio during the offseason of a losing season.
> 
> Yes, that's irrational.


I said it was because of his piss poor leadership and inability to effectively make teammates around him better. That's only an example I gave and that is quite rational. Kobe realized the trade he demanded to the Bulls would just land him on a new crappy team, stopped jacking crappy shots and went 15 games over .500 in January once he accepted he was stuck with the same team he stated was terrible and he blamed all the losing on only what, 3-4 months before? My team sucks, what the hell are they doing, I want to be traded, they make me lose, they're ruining my career, management promised me they'd put decent players around me, theres nothing else I can do with this group, Chicago has such a better team, the clippers have such a better team.

Oh wait... LA is sick of my crap? They ARE going to trade me to Chicago? Okay, but I'm so marketable that you mean if I get traded it's going to automatically ruin the team I go to and make them worse then LA now while making LA a contender? Well crap, what do I do? I guess I'd better use my no-trade clause, try to win with these guys, stop padding my stats and shooting my team out of games, play within the offense so the others can do well too and stop being a dick to everyone. Same players you blame for him sucking. 31-16. I bet you tell people that 'Kobe just needed help... things changed when he got Pau' all the time, don't you. But things changed when Kobe stopped trying to score so much and started trying on defense again. That's precisely what happened. You're apologist attitude is whats irrational.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> I already explained this, you're confused.
> 
> People are literally laughing at your posts.


You've explained nothing except that Steven Hill is 3 times as efficient as Lebron James and Joel Anthony plays the best in the game. Tell me, in the City Of Angels 'I explained this' translate to 'I said something completely incorrect, got torn apart for it but don't want to admit it, so I'll state that I wrote my correct conclusion earlier but won't post it here because my mistakes placed next to the tearing apart will make it obvious, mmm mmm mmm, shfdf, Kobe I'm choking'

Heh, Stans and kids who don't know better are laughing at my posts. Other people have been sending me messages telling me what a great job I've done in this thread and how informative my article was. Sorry if I value their opinion more then people who post false stats to win arguments and can't accept a single point thats not positive about Kobe. Its just the worst kind of homerism. I've been honest and given your special guy credit all over this thread for being a great player. You're agenda against my point of view is staggering.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> phil jackson:


Are you kidding me? A Phil Jackson quote war? That was 2001 man. Is this like, your very first time trying to argue Kobe is way more awesomer then he is? You can never win a Kobe Bryant/Phil Jackson quote war Kobe Stan, unless you want to get absolutely owned. I suspect you'll give up because you know there's entire book of this where it came from.

We'll start with this:
"I'm not going to take any s--- from Shaq[uille O'Neal] this year," Kobe blurted out. "If he starts saying things in the press, I'll fire back. I'm not afraid to go up against him. I've had it."

I tried to calm him down as quickly as possible. "Kobe, we'll watch what's being said," I assured him. "We'll make allowances this year so you'll be able to do what you have to do and then come back to the team. Don't worry. We're hoping for the best."

I looked him right in the eye and gave him a hug. No matter what had gone on between us in the past, he is a member of the Laker family, and families stick together in difficult times. I was sure that at least for the moment, the anger he flashed toward Shaquille was neutralized. After we wrapped up, Kobe headed straight to see Mitch, who later informed me that nothing had been neutralized.

"Shaq didn't call me this summer," Kobe told Mitch.

"Kobe, I gave you a message from him," Mitch responded. "He invited you to Orlando to get away from everything."

"Shaq didn't have to leave a message through you," he said. "He knew how to reach me."

The exchange with Mitch revealed the underlying contradiction in Kobe's attitude toward Shaquille, a symbol, in fact, of a much broader dichotomy in his psyche. On the one hand, he insists that he doesn't "give a **** what the big guy does," but on the other, he shows he cares a great deal about what the big guy does. The meeting with Kobe reinforced an idea I had been contemplating since July, since Colorado, since everything changed. I decided to enlist a therapist to help me cope with what will surely be the most turbulent season of my coaching career. After receiving a few recommendations, I selected a therapist who has dealt with narcissistic behavior in the Los Angeles public school system. He'll be right at home here.

So your play... Maybe I'll pull out a few more in the meantime. Whats your next move? Are you going to give me some sideline report that Phil gave specifically to motivate his players during a season? Have you even read the book or will it crush the NBA dis reality you live in?


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Menh... Reggie was a gamer, a winner and didn't pad his stats like Kobe did. He was a leader and didn't feud with his players. It is, after all, my list, and I rate someone's leadership, which Reggie had in spades and Kobe lacks, pretty highly. No arguments about Kobe, that are valid in any case, claim he's not talented. Reggie came closer then anyone to beating MJ. Reggie wasn't a horrible defender at all and spent his prime winning and overachieving. To me, that counts, a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, its in tiers. Its not saying everyone is the same. Drexler was a great, great player, but he wasn't Kobe good. I'd take Pippen over Kobe any day of the week though. He could dominate a game without taking a shot and had an unquestionable team attitude... players like that are rare and special.


How the **** is Reggie more of a *winner* than Kobe? Reggie's never won a ring, and Kobe's got four.

And taking Pippen over Kobe is *extremley* funny.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Oh stop.
> 
> Kobe gets less assists then Delonte West in his second season and you're on his jock. Among his peers he is not elite at much besides scoring and its a fact. Yes, he's one dimensional. When I watch Kobe play he either plays a team game or goes into Kobe mode and I don't see him able to blend the two. To his credit, which I have no problems giving, he's getting better at it, but the guy has been pretty poor for his entire career at being able to take over with anything but scoring. That last game of the Denver series was a Kobe you see rarely. If he showed up more I'd be riding his jock right with you.
> 
> And I said his jumper 'was' better then their's... maybe you should not just assume everything is hate? It is possible to not like someone's game for valid reasons you know.


Does this make Reggie Miller one dimensional as well? Because he averages over an assist less over his career than Kobe, hell, he's never even averaged five for a season.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> phil jackson:


Since the charges were made, Kobe has been treated remarkably well by the Lakers organization and the fans. He gave his press conference at Staples with our blessing, and we have agreed -- once we attained permission from the league to make sure the funds wouldn't be applied to the salary cap -- to cover a percentage of his private plane expenses to and from Colorado for court hearings. This will cost thousands of dollars. Kobe was unhappy with the type of plane that was selected; he wanted one with higher status.

Oh yes, he did say.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, yea, and Reggie never forced out the best player on his team at the first signs of him getting old either. Reggie never went on the radio and tore his team down, demanded a trade and made public statements telling guys on his team they were jokes either.
> 
> You guys are hilarious. "Hey, this is why I like chocolate ice cream. I'm allergic to nuts, and it doesn't have any." WTF! HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE PEANUT BUTTER FUDGE ICE CREAM??? ITS THE BEST! FUDGE IS WAY BETTER THEN CHOCOLATE!" Well, I don't like peanuts, they make me die. "YOU IDIOT. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE PEANUTS. FUDGE IS BETTER THEN CHOCOLATE!"
> 
> Yes, if you ignore all of Kobe's negative points and highlight the negative aspects of other players, Kobe will look better. I agree. If I'm a pure Kobe hater, which I'm not, explain to me how being a Kobe homer is better? I don't pretend that i've been 100% correct on everything, but I've been pretty close. Some of you have made some pretty crazy claims in here. Someone even tried to explain how taking >40 shots is good strategy when the all timey record for >40 shots taken by one play is 4-15, and the record for top 10 FGA is 2-10. ;0
> 
> Like, I make a case thats pretty convincing that Kobe does something that hurts ball teams and some people calim he does not, while otehrs claim its not in fact negative. Its a lot of things... u guys refuse to budge, yet I'm irrational?


This post has literally nothing to do with basketball, why is it in this thread?


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Does this make Reggie Miller one dimensional as well? Because he averages over an assist less over his career than Kobe, hell, he's never even averaged five for a season.


? Reggie was a shooter. He used his shooting just about as well as he possibly could to affect the games he played in. You know, for all the hoopla you guys gave earlier about 'different offenses' and their affect on assists, you're not bringing that up much when talking about Kobe's competition. Instead you're bringing up a 1.2 assist difference for a guy who's whole game was running 'without' the ball. Could you be anymore bias VanillaPrice? I mean, we spoke out of this thread and I thought you were pretty intelligent, so ask yourself if that's a reasonable way to compare Reggie and Kobe, a slasher/shooter who dominates the ball and always has it in his hands.

Kobe has more pure talent then Reggie. But how you use your talent counts just as much as how much you have. Its why Shaq, who could pretty unquestionably be the GOAT, is not the GOAT, but just one of the best.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

This kid is still running his mouth in here? lol
There is way too much wrong with what you post in this thread. How can you commend yourself on being almost 100% correct? lol. You are some-where below the 50% mark. Aside from numbers (which occasionally are off) you provide 0 links and basically are just here rambling off about your girl-scout cookies that a lot of us don't want to buy.
People might commend you about your point of view and that is fine, but don't run around this place like you are God's gift to this web-site cause your not.


----------



## kflo

reggie's prime had 5 losing seasons. kobe 1. kobe has 4 titles and 6 finals appearances. reggie 1 appearance. reggie = winner. kobe = loser.


----------



## indiefan23

S2theONIC said:


> This kid is still running his mouth in here? lol
> There is way too much wrong with what you post in this thread. How can you commend yourself on being almost 100% correct? lol. You are some-where below the 50% mark. Aside from numbers (which occasionally are off) you provide 0 links and basically are just here rambling off about your girl-scout cookies that a lot of us don't want to buy.
> People might commend you about your point of view and that is fine, but don't run around this place like you are God's gift to this web-site cause your not.


Nice to meet you. So do you often respond to people before reading anything they've written? You know that in an argument every personal attack is an admission that you can't refute the points, right? At least guys like kflo are putting some thought into what they're saying. This is just 'I hate you' internet diarrhea.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> reggie's prime had 5 losing seasons. kobe 1. kobe has 4 titles and 6 finals appearances. reggie 1 appearance. reggie = winner. kobe = loser.


5? What crack are you smoking? There is like, 1-3 years the team didn't do well because Rik Smitts got injured. Its not 5 at all and its also due to injuries on the team. If Reggie played with Shaq or on the current stacked Lakers team he wins lots of titles too so it doesn't really count. Kobe's peak as a player was padding his stats on a mediocre middling team that never came together. Reggie's was as one of the best teams in the league that played together as a team in every sense of the word. Reggie: overachiever. Kobe: underachiever. Hey, I like team players cuz it's a team sport, not one on one.


----------



## bballlife

This is obviously an elaborate troll job.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

indiefan23 said:


> 5? What crack are you smoking? There is like, 1-3 years the team didn't do well because Rik Smitts got injured. Its not 5 at all and its also due to injuries on the team.* If Reggie played with Shaq or on the current stacked Lakers team he wins lots of titles too so it doesn't really count.* Kobe's peak as a player was padding his stats on a mediocre middling team that never came together. Reggie's was as one of the best teams in the league that played together as a team in every sense of the word. Reggie: overachiever. Kobe: underachiever. Hey, I like team players cuz it's a team sport, not one on one.


I have read through every post in this thread which includes your article. I just don't have the time or energy to quote you or de-bunk every one of your posts.
I don't hate you. My opinion on what you posts is based on the lack of evidence of what you write in here.
Can you please provide proof of this? Did you some-how time machine to the 6th dimension where this actually occurred and Reggie won a tittle?
Like I said almost 100% correct? I think not, you are way off.


----------



## bball2223

indiefan23 said:


> You know that in an argument every personal attack is an admission that you can't refute the points, right?


Which was followed by



indiefan23 said:


> 5? What crack are you smoking?



:champagne::champagne::champagne: to being a hypocrite


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> 5? What crack are you smoking? There is like, 1-3 years the team didn't do well because Rik Smitts got injured. Its not 5 at all and its also due to injuries on the team. If Reggie played with Shaq or on the current stacked Lakers team he wins lots of titles too so it doesn't really count. Kobe's peak as a player was padding his stats on a mediocre middling team that never came together. Reggie's was as one of the best teams in the league that played together as a team in every sense of the word. Reggie: overachiever. Kobe: underachiever. Hey, I like team players cuz it's a team sport, not one on one.


You talk about injuries and yet you ignore the 2005 season, where Kobe missed 16 games, Odom missed 18 games, and they got a new head coach in the middle of the season. Talk about selective information.

And Kobe wasted his prime one crappy teams? He just led his team to a title THIS YEAR, led his team to the finals last year, and made deep playoff runs in 2003 and 2004. How does this mean that Reggie is an overachiever and Kobe is an underachiver? Anyone who was four rings can't be labeled as an underachiever in my book, but hey, thats just me.

Oh, and Reggie should absolutley have his assist averages counted against him, just because he wasn't good enough to be a focal point of an offense (ala Kobe) doesn't mean that he gets a free pass. Comparing Reggie Miller to Kobe is stupid, there isn't an argument otherwise, give it up.

Edit: Cap, looks like you have some work to do on updating the list.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> 5? What crack are you smoking? There is like, 1-3 years the team didn't do well because Rik Smitts got injured. Its not 5 at all and its also due to injuries on the team. If Reggie played with Shaq or on the current stacked Lakers team he wins lots of titles too so it doesn't really count. Kobe's peak as a player was padding his stats on a mediocre middling team that never came together. Reggie's was as one of the best teams in the league that played together as a team in every sense of the word. Reggie: overachiever. Kobe: underachiever. Hey, I like team players cuz it's a team sport, not one on one.


i was actually wrong. 41 or fewer wins 5 years. 91-93, 97, 01. 

and you keep referencing HOW YOU feel kobe played. but his TEAM results have actually been pretty great. he has had 1 year with fewer than 42 wins in his career. but reggie = winner, kobe = loser. you don't really seem to care about results, but results that come in a way you approve. 

kobe has had now a 9 year peak. i wouldn't say he's been on mediocre middling teams for 9 years.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> You talk about injuries and yet you ignore the 2005 season, where Kobe missed 16 games, Odom missed 18 games, and they got a new head coach in the middle of the season. Talk about selective information.


Kobe went 2-18 to finish the season with Caron Butler. They went 4-5 without Kobe. 'thats' selective man.



> And Kobe wasted his prime one crappy teams? He just led his team to a title THIS YEAR, led his team to the finals last year, and made deep playoff runs in 2003 and 2004. How does this mean that Reggie is an overachiever and Kobe is an underachiver? Anyone who was four rings can't be labeled as an underachiever in my book, but hey, thats just me.


Uh, I don't think Kobe's in his prime anymore? Pretty simple. Dude has lost half a step and depends on his jumper more then ever. He's still Kobe so half a step still means he's better then almost everyone in the league, but his explosiveness has not been the same for a while. Rings are silly. Adam Morrison has a ring. Is he better then Reggie too? Fact is Kobe has rings that are mostly Shaq's on 3 fingers cuz without Shaq portland, sacramento and san antonio win those rings.



> Oh, and Reggie should absolutley have his assist averages counted against him, just because he wasn't good enough to be a focal point of an offense (ala Kobe) doesn't mean that he gets a free pass. Comparing Reggie Miller to Kobe is stupid, there isn't an argument otherwise, give it up.


Dude, I'm using the 'different offenses' pass you guys used as an excuse for Kobe's poor passing game. Other then that, Kobe faces ridiculously weaker defenses then Reggie did. Listen to what you're saying. Kobe has the ball in his hands constantly yet he's only got 1.4 dimes less for his entire career. While Miller's game was not initiating the offense at all. That's an indictment of Kobe's passing game for sure. I hardly expect you to agree, apparently you guys keep a list of people who make arguments you have trouble dismissing so you just dismiss them instead, or something.

I mean, whats so crazy here? Reggie Miller was a fantastic ball player who was a much better leader then Kobe. I accept that Kobe's got more talent then he does and more ability and its not enough for you. You just totally refuse to admit Kobe Bryant is anything but some choir boy when his own coach actually hired a team therapist in response to Kobe's narcissism. I hold that narcissism against Kobe and its a fair thing to hold against him. Even if he did turn himself around this year, which is highly questionably but possible, he's 30 and its too late to figure it out and not have it count for your career. It counts against Kobe. It seems like you want to ignore it, but it counts because its an indelible part of his career. Are you denying that?

So why am I a hater because I'm counting something that 'is' there that I value quite a bit? I'm willing to accept all kinds of positive things about the guy, I'm just willing to accept his negatives too and it drives you crazy I think.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i was actually wrong. 41 or fewer wins 5 years. 91-93, 97, 01.
> 
> and you keep referencing HOW YOU feel kobe played. but his TEAM results have actually been pretty great. he has had 1 year with fewer than 42 wins in his career. but reggie = winner, kobe = loser. you don't really seem to care about results, but results that come in a way you approve.
> 
> kobe has had now a 9 year peak. i wouldn't say he's been on mediocre middling teams for 9 years.


A 9 year peak. ;0 Don't be ridiculous. When Shaq left Kobe was as confused in how to run a team as Michael Jackson would be at the playboy mansion. I love you you include playing with the best center (possibly ever) as part of his 9 year peak. Kobe was rising, for sure, and getting better, but as soon as he actually started to get good it went to his head and he lost his way for something like, what, 6-7 years?


----------



## indiefan23

bball2223 said:


> Which was followed by
> 
> :champagne::champagne::champagne: to being a hypocrite


Oh please... what crack are you smoking is a colloquial expression, not a personal insult.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> This post has literally nothing to do with basketball, why is it in this thread?


Heh, well, it started to be about basketball, but then the insecure Kobe fan bus showed up with some buckets of hate to throw at me simply because I didn't like their favorite player and could explain why.


----------



## indiefan23

S2theONIC said:


> I have read through every post in this thread which includes your article. I just don't have the time or energy to quote you or de-bunk every one of your posts.
> I don't hate you. My opinion on what you posts is based on the lack of evidence of what you write in here.
> Can you please provide proof of this? Did you some-how time machine to the 6th dimension where this actually occurred and Reggie won a tittle?
> Like I said almost 100% correct? I think not, you are way off.


Well, unlike yourself, if I'm negative about someone or something I at least explain myself. Go throw empty words at someone else.


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> This is obviously an elaborate troll job.


Uh, not really, its a guy who stupidly got frustrated with trolls he should have just ignored.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> A 9 year peak. ;0 Don't be ridiculous. When Shaq left Kobe was as confused in how to run a team as Michael Jackson would be at the playboy mansion. I love you you include playing with the best center (possibly ever) as part of his 9 year peak. Kobe was rising, for sure, and getting better, but as soon as he actually started to get good it went to his head and he lost his way for something like, what, 6-7 years?


so when kobe averaged 28.5 / 6 / 5 in '01, we shouldn't include that in his peak? he's been among the handful of best players in the league for 9 years. period.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> so when kobe averaged 28.5 / 6 / 5 in '01, we shouldn't include that in his peak? he's been among the handful of best players in the league for 9 years. period.


It hardly matters if he's been among the most talented in the league for 9 years because I've never stated otherwise. I don't have any issues with the guy's talent or capabilities at all or in any way. You keep responding to things I've never said and just pretend that everything I state is a negative troll job.

Kobe is officially awesome at playing basketball and I've never stated anything but that from the beginning. I've got no problem accepting things that are true and its true and I've stated its true a gazillion times already. So if I say this, why do you keep coming back at me telling me how he's really talented? I've never questioned that, and from the get go have spoken about how he uses his talents in conjunction with his team, the guy's psychology and how he interacts with people on the court, off the court and in the media. All those things absolutely go into your greatness and worth as a player. Its not even that I think Kobe sucks, its that I think he could have been so, so much more, but you guys are all over me because I want to be honest about how he plays the game. Its ridiculous.

Kflo, why not response to Phil Jackson's absolutely scathing criticisms of Kobe's ego being put in front of that of the team? Why don't you respond to that?


----------



## Jesukki

That indiefan has no life whatsoever. So many pages full of bull****. Kobe is a great playmaker and if you say he isn't that means you have never watched a laker game. You are just a pathetic stat geek. 
And Reggie was a great shooter nothing else. And i take Phil Jacksons words not yours. He has said many times that Kobe has developed to a great playmaker and most important a great leader.
Offcourse Kobe has been a ******* and immature sometimes but who among us hasn't? And Reggie was a cocky mother****er. Why dont you complain about that?


----------



## kflo

you mocked kobe having a 9 year peak, i identified when his peak started ('01), and now you're complaining? it's not that he's been talented, it's that he's been great. universally recognized and accepted as great. his peak has been 9 years. a point you seem to take exception to. and then complain.

phil talked about the conflict between kobe and shaq. it was a point in time reference. 

my quote from phil highlighted how kobe has been able to elevate his team without simply scoring a ton of points, for a long time. contrary to your belief, he didn't discover something in this years finals he's never been able to do before. your quote spoke very little about kobe on the court.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

indiefan23 said:


> Well, unlike yourself, if I'm negative about someone or something I at least explain myself. Go throw empty words at someone else.


Are you blind? Did I not explain myself on why I dislike of your posts? 
The least you can do is answer my question on how you magically know that Reggie/Shaq would of won multiple championships like Kobe/Shaq did. Because the only evidence of it you have so far is one word "if", and that two letter word holds no ground.
You are fabricating lies to save face now. You ran out of ammo long ago as soon as guys like cap, kflo, game and gta ripped apart your article.
Now you are just mad because you spent a lot of time writing something that is immensely faulty and proves no real analysis on actual player performance during high scoring games. You spent about 15 pages dodging a simple question that kflo asked you. You have also contradicted yourself, set double standards for other players and have said the crap stat was not made up solely to discredit Kobe Bryant when in fact it was.


----------



## Kneejoh

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, what hype. Kobe didn't mentor a veritable all star team from being average to solid contributors, they were already all stars. The team helped a lot of people's games, there is no doubt in that, but hey hey, here's a clue. Maybe Kobe got something from Lebron, Wade and Melo when he saw how teammates who lead behave and realized these kids were doing a better job of it then him. Kobe was in such a bubble of yes men for his entire career, they even got rid of Shaq for him, that he'd never been exposed to any way to win except 'taking over the game'. I love how Lebron makes one comment about being surprised by Kobe's work ethic and suddenly it's Kobe who made Lebron good. Did team USA help people? Yes. Was Kobe part of that? Yes. Did he make Lebron James good? No, Lebron James was good by his first NBA game. Really, really good. Wade already had a ring. Bron already made the finals. Howard already was a beast and made the leap the year before and has had nothing close to a career year yet. Kobe didn't make all stars all stars man.


I don't have the patience to argue with you because it's like you're the village idiot around here. The reason that nobody can argue around here is because you have irrational and totally disillusioned views of Kobe. You constantly flip flop just to prove your stupid point. X player is better than Kobe because he averages more assists, Kobe is worse than X player even if Kobe averages more assists. 

Without Kobe, Portland, San Antonio and Sacramento win those titles and Shaq has nothing. (Flipped your stupid argument)

Why is Kobe a loser even when his team makes it to the Finals, and other players are winners when they don't make the playoffs?

Kobe is a good leader and a great facilitator and a great play maker. I know this because I watch him and don't resort to stats. 

Finally you might be the only person that watches basketball that thinks Kobe isn't a play maker. Including all the players that played with him. 

One more thing. The reason that it is pointless to argue with you is because even when we give you straight hard facts about why Kobe is a great play maker, a great player and a great leader you just MAKE up an opinion to defend it. Like you're about to do now when I remind you that in 2001 Shaq said Kobe was the best player in the game. What say you to that? Come on make something up for all of to hear about how Shaq was delusional, Shaq was saying it to appease to Kobe, or how PJ made him say it, or how God knows who made him do it. Now do you see why it is impossible to argue against you? You make up stuff. You flip flop. And you don't really know basketball that well if you think Smush could have been as good as Pippen. That's like me saying if Jordan was half as good as you say why didn't Longley turn into Pau Gasol? Huh tell me why, answer that one for me too.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> You've explained nothing except that Steven Hill is 3 times as efficient as Lebron James and Joel Anthony plays the best in the game. Tell me, in the City Of Angels 'I explained this' translate to 'I said something completely incorrect, got torn apart for it but don't want to admit it, so I'll state that I wrote my correct conclusion earlier but won't post it here because my mistakes placed next to the tearing apart will make it obvious, mmm mmm mmm, shfdf, Kobe I'm choking'
> 
> Heh, Stans and kids who don't know better are laughing at my posts. Other people have been sending me messages telling me what a great job I've done in this thread and how informative my article was. Sorry if I value their opinion more then people who post false stats to win arguments and can't accept a single point thats not positive about Kobe. Its just the worst kind of homerism. I've been honest and given your special guy credit all over this thread for being a great player. You're agenda against my point of view is staggering.


You've been beaten badly in this thread multiple times; you still can't man up and admit that Bryant doesn't score 40+ against bad teams any more often than any other great scorer in NBA history, and still can't explain how the Lakers have a better winning % when he scores 40+ as a result. That's why you *wimp out* of replying to this point continually; because you didn't look at whether MJ/Wade/LeBron/AI/etc. scored their 40+ mostly against bad teams, it makes the entire crux of your argument that his 40+ point games are "selfish" bunk, since he still wins, wins against good teams, and does so at a rate that is elite with the best of them. That's why you select tangential points to reply to, because you're a wimp. It's why people are laughing at you, you can't man up, and worst yet your stats are almost all wrong (as in verifiably wrong, basic stuff like team records, FG%'s, etc., are wrong in your article and have already been *proven* wrong with links in this thread). 

You're being so badly beaten that you actually have to make up stories about people PM'ing you about what a great job you're doing. It's sad and everyone sees it, especially the bit about you being a programmer, which is funny because I bet you couldn't actually prove that either if your life depended on it. :laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Kobe led more title-winning teams in assists per game than Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, and Gary Payton put together. I thought I'd try my hand in novelty stats, haha. If you think Kobe is one dimensional then you have too much ground to make up to form a rational opinion about Kobe, so I won't bother. 

Reggie Miller is on the same level with Kobe because Reggie is a winner who never won a title and Kobe is a loser who won 4 titles on accident. Damn.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Kobe went 2-18 to finish the season with Caron Butler. They went 4-5 without Kobe. 'thats' selective man.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I don't think Kobe's in his prime anymore? Pretty simple. Dude has lost half a step and depends on his jumper more then ever. He's still Kobe so half a step still means he's better then almost everyone in the league, but his explosiveness has not been the same for a while. Rings are silly. Adam Morrison has a ring. Is he better then Reggie too? Fact is Kobe has rings that are mostly Shaq's on 3 fingers cuz without Shaq portland, sacramento and san antonio win those rings.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm using the 'different offenses' pass you guys used as an excuse for Kobe's poor passing game. Other then that, Kobe faces ridiculously weaker defenses then Reggie did. Listen to what you're saying. Kobe has the ball in his hands constantly yet he's only got 1.4 dimes less for his entire career. While Miller's game was not initiating the offense at all. That's an indictment of Kobe's passing game for sure. I hardly expect you to agree, apparently you guys keep a list of people who make arguments you have trouble dismissing so you just dismiss them instead, or something.
> 
> I mean, whats so crazy here? Reggie Miller was a fantastic ball player who was a much better leader then Kobe. I accept that Kobe's got more talent then he does and more ability and its not enough for you. You just totally refuse to admit Kobe Bryant is anything but some choir boy when his own coach actually hired a team therapist in response to Kobe's narcissism. I hold that narcissism against Kobe and its a fair thing to hold against him. Even if he did turn himself around this year, which is highly questionably but possible, he's 30 and its too late to figure it out and not have it count for your career. It counts against Kobe. It seems like you want to ignore it, but it counts because its an indelible part of his career. Are you denying that?
> 
> So why am I a hater because I'm counting something that 'is' there that I value quite a bit? I'm willing to accept all kinds of positive things about the guy, I'm just willing to accept his negatives too and it drives you crazy I think.



Yeah, they went 2-18, with a brand new coach that didn't know what the hell he was doing, a half injured Kobe, and a hobbling Caron.

What about Kobe's fourth ring? Fact is Reggie never won a ring as the main guy, hell, he didn't even win a ring as the third or fourth best player (2004/2005) Kobe's still in his "prime" just because he isn't as explosive doesn't mean he's not as effective. And to say that he wasn't in his prime in 2008 is equally dumb, considering that 2008 was the only year Kobe won the MVP.

You don't think that the fact that Kobe plays in the triangle offense has anything to do with his assist averages? And why shouldn't Reggie get penalized for not getting more assists? If he was a better player he could've had the ball in his hands more. It's as simple as that.

How was Reggie a better leader than Kobe? He never led his teams anywhere.

Oh, so the reason why you have Kobe pegged so far down with the likes of Reggie, Clyde, and Scottie, has nothing to do with basketball, and everything to do with the fact that you don't like he's narcisistic? Got it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

And if we play the "valuing opinions" thing, you have no chance. Do you know how well-respected Kobe is by players and coaches around the league? Of course, I'm sure those people don't matter much to you, only the supposed people PM'ing you.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Althought i have always welcomed a poster with a "hate agenda", this is getting ridiculous...


----------



## sonicFLAME6

I wouldn't be surprised if this is Ashton Kutcher punking all of us. I just can't imagine anyone posting the crap he does with a straight face.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Are we really arguing if Kobe was better than Reggie? That is like arguing if Payton was better than Rod Strickland.


----------



## Luke

Jamel Irief said:


> Are we really arguing if Kobe was better than Reggie? That is like arguing if Payton was better than Rod Strickland.


Payton's a career loser thats too selfish to ever be mentioned with the great leader that is Rod Strickland. Payton's teams won 0% of games that he scored over 50 points in. Open your eyes man!


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

Jamel Irief said:


> Are we really arguing if Kobe was better than Reggie? That is like arguing if Payton was better than Rod Strickland.


ehhh more like comparing magic johnson to bernard king


----------



## indiefan23

Jesukki said:


> And i take Phil Jacksons words not yours. He has said many times that Kobe has developed to a great playmaker and most important a great leader.
> Offcourse Kobe has been a ******* and immature sometimes but who among us hasn't? And Reggie was a cocky mother****er. Why dont you complain about that?


Well... reggie always brought it for his team on the court. He wasn't cocky to his own teammates.

And you take Phil Jackson's words? Phil Jackson's words are the most scathing criticisms of all.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> you mocked kobe having a 9 year peak, i identified when his peak started ('01), and now you're complaining? it's not that he's been talented, it's that he's been great. universally recognized and accepted as great. his peak has been 9 years. a point you seem to take exception to. and then complain.


Its hardly universal. Kobe is a polarizing figure which means people love 'and' hate him. And his 'peak' is a talent peak. His talent as per my argument has been in competition with his ambition and ego for his whole career. I mock Kobe playing off Shaq, and then his team falling apart when Shaq leaves, middling seasons and only trying once he realized he couldn't be traded to a better situation as a peak. Yes, I do. Its not that I don't acknowledge there have been plenty of good things that happened in that time, every time you bring one up I say yes, that's true those are very positive points about Kobe and I'll grant them to you, its that you challenge, ignore and dismiss every single possible negative about him, his attitude towards his team and the game, and how that attitude has poisoned his team to the point where they tried to trade him when Kobe probably only went on the radio trying to force them to trade the other players. You've gotta think about it. His own team, the Lakers, who he won 4 rings with, gave up on Kobe and chose his surrounding players and a group of lesser players from Chicago over him, but, Kobe had a no-trade clause and stopped it. LA was ready to trade a guy who'd just had 35 and 31 PPG seasons because they couldn't take it anymore. Kobe has come out of it disciplines, changed his ways and has done okay, but what happened still happened.



> phil talked about the conflict between kobe and shaq. it was a point in time reference.
> 
> my quote from phil highlighted how kobe has been able to elevate his team without simply scoring a ton of points, for a long time. contrary to your belief, he didn't discover something in this years finals he's never been able to do before. your quote spoke very little about kobe on the court.


Phil talked about Kobe months prior to him starting the 05 season. You mean to think that all changed within a few months and Kobe, a guy he hired a team therapist specializing in narcissism in response to, was now a great guy and leader? It gets way worse from there kflo. Have you read the book? Phil is a smart, honest and forthright person. Is he a hater too when he's honest about Kobe's negatives?


----------



## indiefan23

S2theONIC said:


> Are you blind? Did I not explain myself on why I dislike of your posts?


Well, you failed to cite any examples or talk about specifics. You're hurling insults.



> You are fabricating lies to save face now. You ran out of ammo long ago as soon as guys like cap, kflo, game and gta ripped apart your article.


Again, when did this happen exactly? ;0 I remember those guys thinking they ripped me apart, being destroyed and moving onto a new angle. Again, just hurling insults with nothing to back them up. Troll.


----------



## indiefan23

thug_immortal8 said:


> I don't have the patience to argue with you because it's like you're the village idiot around here. The reason that nobody can argue around here is because you have irrational and totally disillusioned views of Kobe. You constantly flip flop just to prove your stupid point. X player is better than Kobe because he averages more assists, Kobe is worse than X player even if Kobe averages more assists.


See, this has 'nothing' to do with my stat at all. Its not average assists 'at all' or in any way like that. You didn't read what I wrote at all yet are responding like you're an authority. Yet I'm the village idiot?



> Without Kobe, Portland, San Antonio and Sacramento win those titles and Shaq has nothing. (Flipped your stupid argument)


Heh, yea, you also flipped the validity of the argument too. ;0



> Why is Kobe a loser even when his team makes it to the Finals, and other players are winners when they don't make the playoffs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kobe is a good leader and a great facilitator and a great play maker. I know this because I watch him and don't resort to stats.
> 
> Finally you might be the only person that watches basketball that thinks Kobe isn't a play maker. Including all the players that played with him.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, I've never even slammed Kobe's abilities, not once. I've stated repeatedly he has oodles of talent but chooses to score and jack shots instead of make plays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing. The reason that it is pointless to argue with you is because even when we give you straight hard facts about why Kobe is a great play maker, a great player and a great leader you just MAKE up an opinion to defend it. Like you're about to do now when I remind you that in 2001 Shaq said Kobe was the best player in the game. What say you to that? Come on make something up for all of to hear about how Shaq was delusional, Shaq was saying it to appease to Kobe, or how PJ made him say it, or how God knows who made him do it. Now do you see why it is impossible to argue against you? You make up stuff. You flip flop. And you don't really know basketball that well if you think Smush could have been as good as Pippen. That's like me saying if Jordan was half as good as you say why didn't Longley turn into Pau Gasol? Huh tell me why, answer that one for me too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know why Shaq said that. He was feuding with Kobe so I would suspect it was to try and heal some wounds. I didn't make that up: its totally plausible based on the history of the two players. I believe PJ even mentioned that event in his book in such a way. Shaq passing the olive branch.
> 
> I've flip flopped about nothing. I make stuff up? What about when I said this?
> 
> "I won't say Smush could have been Scotti Pippen, but he could have been more then he became. He showed potential to be much more." And now you're 'making up' that I said Smush could have been Pippen?
> 
> And your analogies are so weak. Pau Gasol was Pau Gasol long before he ever got to the Lakers.
Click to expand...


----------



## indiefan23

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> ehhh more like comparing magic johnson to bernard king


Heh, like you just compared Kobe to Magic Johnson? ;0 A more apt comparison is Allen Iverson to Rip Hamilton. Way, way, way closer.


----------



## indiefan23

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kobe led more title-winning teams in assists per game than Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, and Gary Payton put together. I thought I'd try my hand in novelty stats, haha. If you think Kobe is one dimensional then you have too much ground to make up to form a rational opinion about Kobe, so I won't bother.
> 
> Reggie Miller is on the same level with Kobe because Reggie is a winner who never won a title and Kobe is a loser who won 4 titles on accident. Damn.


Yawn, my stat is not APG at all. Lets use your logic. They have never led title teams so they get 0 dimes. Since they have nothing, they get 0 dimes in >40 point games. Kobe's differential is 'still' well below 0. Actually patchwork, I think I'm going to throw you on ignore. You're just insulting me every post. So c ya.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> You've been beaten badly in this thread multiple times; you still can't man up and admit that Bryant doesn't score 40+ against bad teams any more often than any other great scorer in NBA history, and still can't explain how the Lakers have a better winning % when he scores 40+ as a result.


I already responded to this with Jordan's opponents averaging 47 wins. Watch: Wade's average was 44 wins. Go look them up yourself, I'm not your secretary.



> That's why you *wimp out* of replying to this point continually; because you didn't look at whether MJ/Wade/LeBron/AI/etc. scored their 40+ mostly against bad teams, it makes the entire crux of your argument that his 40+ point games are "selfish" bunk, since he still wins, wins against good teams, and does so at a rate that is elite with the best of them.


Hmm... well the crux of my argument is that as he scores more points he forgets what passing and creating for his teammates is, actually. ;0 I love how you accuse me of making things up and then just state out of nowhere that he scores his best points against good teams and wins, when its specifically not true and blatently obvious you've not looked it up yourself. ;0



> That's why you select tangential points to reply to, because you're a wimp. It's why people are laughing at you, you can't man up, and worst yet your stats are almost all wrong (as in verifiably wrong, basic stuff like team records, FG%'s, etc., are wrong in your article and have already been *proven* wrong with links in this thread).


Heh, you mean when I said 0 dimes and 3 boards, when it was actually 0 boards, 3 dimes? That's a typo. The only non-laker fans who are laughing at me are the ones laughing that I'm wasting my time posting responses to your foolishness.



> You're being so badly beaten that you actually have to make up stories about people PM'ing you about what a great job you're doing. It's sad and everyone sees it, especially the bit about you being a programmer, which is funny because I bet you couldn't actually prove that either if your life depended on it. :laugh:


Seriously, now you are just resorting to saying I'm a big fat liar? I'm not even dignifying that with a response. You're not even talking about basketball, you're just talking about and hating on me. If you want to talk hoop, get back on track.


----------



## DaRizzle

indiefan, go away


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Yeah, they went 2-18, with a brand new coach that didn't know what the hell he was doing, a half injured Kobe, and a hobbling Caron.


I think thats a bit of hyperbole and excuses. 33 wins for a team that talented is just not acceptable.



> What about Kobe's fourth ring? Fact is Reggie never won a ring as the main guy, hell, he didn't even win a ring as the third or fourth best player (2004/2005) Kobe's still in his "prime" just because he isn't as explosive doesn't mean he's not as effective. And to say that he wasn't in his prime in 2008 is equally dumb, considering that 2008 was the only year Kobe won the MVP.


Menh, Kobe won a lifetime achievement MVP. Kobe is no where near the same player he was in 2006 in 2009. I'll accept 'end of his prime' cuz that's legitimate, but 2006 Kobe would kill 2009 Kobe. Kudos for Kobe's ring, but teams win rings. If he lost 4 single games in the finals instead of winning them, or lost one more game in teh houston series would that mean Kobe is now a worse player? Not at all. Winning/not winning rings only really counts when your individual effort specifically kills/makes your team's chances, but thats not really rings but performances under pressure. # of rings is a team and luck measurement, not an individual measurement.



> You don't think that the fact that Kobe plays in the triangle offense has anything to do with his assist averages? And why shouldn't Reggie get penalized for not getting more assists? If he was a better player he could've had the ball in his hands more. It's as simple as that.
> How was Reggie a better leader than Kobe? He never led his teams anywhere.


Well, playing in the triangle caused Michael to average .2 fewer assists which in my books is negligible so not that much. Theres a lot of angles to it so even maybe. I don't think it compares with being a shooter vs a guy who's got the ball in his hands all the time making decisions with it. Like I said, the fact that Kobe's numbers are only 1.4 away from Reggie, a career screen runner and shooter, is an indictment of his play.

As for the leadership, his teams did well lots. The difference is that Reggie did not play with a guy like Shaq or on super stacked teams like the 09 squad. Again, titles are poor individual measures.



> Oh, so the reason why you have Kobe pegged so far down with the likes of Reggie, Clyde, and Scottie, has nothing to do with basketball, and everything to do with the fact that you don't like he's narcisistic? Got it.


Your mentality and attitude have as much to do with the game as your actual skills shooting and dribbling a ball. Thats because its a team game and you win based on how you interact and play with others. I don't like how Kobe's narcissism takes control of him and negatively affects his teams and have been very clear on that.

I think finals Kobe lost some of that negative attitude, and as a result I liked watching that guy play lots more. Dude feuded with Shaq resulting in one lost title and likely more, losing the most dominant center in the game, years or mediocrity and he still didn't get it by 08 when he shot his team out of the finals trying to do it all himself and be Jordan. Reggie is a guy who played his heart out for his team and accepted a lesser role in the offense when they got more talented not because he couldn't do it anymore, but because he felt if he accepted that role his team would have a better chance to win and a brighter future after he retired.

If that's true Reggie has an edge there and its something I value quite highly. Is that a plausible interpretation of events. Yes, I think so. Are there other plausible interpretations? Yes, there are for sure. But its my list, so my interpretation of events is what counts. Its not 'crazy' to think that Kobe is selfish because we've seen events that appear selfish his entire career. I'm not even coming close to Phil Jackson's scathing book, I'm way below that.

You know whats truly ironic, you guys keep calling me a hater, but my feelings about Kobe come from a belief that he could be so much more. He could be right there with Magic and Bird and Jordan. I truly believe that. But he's not cuz of all this BS he's allowed to distract him. Menh, I suppose. I don't get it. I say the guy is an awesome player and you call me a hater.


----------



## Cap

indiefan23 said:


> I already responded to this with Jordan's opponents averaging 47 wins. Watch: Wade's average was 44 wins. Go look them up yourself, I'm not your secretary.


I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but fact is that if you didn't bother looking up the _relative_ winning %'s of teams Wade/LeBron/MJ/etc. scored 40+, while similtaneously arguing how Bryant's 40+ point games _relative_ other players isn't that good, then you lack both common sense and a basic high school education. There's no way your argument has merit unless you list those stats. Of course, your stats would probably be inaccurate and/or made up anyway, so your efforts make no difference in the end since your credibility is nil. 



> Hmm... well the crux of my argument is that as he scores more points he forgets what passing and creating for his teammates is, actually. ;0 I love how you accuse me of making things up and then just state out of nowhere that he scores his best points against good teams and wins, when its specifically not true and blatently obvious you've not looked it up yourself. ;0


I have looked it up myself; he has many 40+ point games in both the regular season and playoffs against top ranked defenses _and_ top ranked teams; Spurs, Rockets, Nuggets, Magic, Mavs, Cavs, etc. The fact that you did not list those games shows exactly why people laugh at your points; it's extremely easy to look up, so no one is fooled into believing anything you wrote in your article. 



> Heh, you mean when I said 0 dimes and 3 boards, when it was actually 0 boards, 3 dimes? That's a typo.


1. Got the 04-05 Lakers' win total wrong (said 33, was actually 34).
2. Got Mihm's PER with the Cavs wrong (said 16.2, was actually 16.6).
3. Got the Lakers' record without Bryant in 04-05 wrong (said 4-5, was actually 6-8). 
4. And Almost assuredly inaccurately calculated his points to assist average incorrectly based on your terrible math and high school level statistics education. 

I could go on but it's already blatantly obvious. 



> The only non-laker fans who are laughing at me are the ones laughing that I'm wasting my time posting responses to your foolishness.


No, pretty much everyone is laughing at you in this thread and anyone that wanted to defend you hasn't actually shown up, save for some lame attempt by the OP, who has predictably skedaddled. 



> Seriously, now you are just resorting to saying I'm a big fat liar? I'm not even dignifying that with a response. You're not even talking about basketball, you're just talking about and hating on me. If you want to talk hoop, get back on track.


You haven't talked hoop this whole thread beyond lame trolling attempts masked as "analysis" by an admitted statistics layman. In reality, it's _you_ who needs to let _me_ know when _you're_ ready to talk hoop.

Of course, that day likely won't come and we'll hear yet again why a computer programmer who admittedly has no background in statistics or mathematics is most qualified to equate ppg-to-apg as if it measures anything significant other than the writer's preconceived notions which have already been well debunked throughout this thread and continue to make him looked foolish with each and every attempt to equate Bryant to Reggie freaking Miller. :laugh:


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Its hardly universal. Kobe is a polarizing figure which means people love 'and' hate him. And his 'peak' is a talent peak. His talent as per my argument has been in competition with his ambition and ego for his whole career. I mock Kobe playing off Shaq, and then his team falling apart when Shaq leaves, middling seasons and only trying once he realized he couldn't be traded to a better situation as a peak.


the respect for his place in the game is pretty universal. to claim he hasn't had a 9 year peak is ignoring reality. you may not have liked his game over that period, but that's his peak. and he's been recognized with all-nba's, all-defensive awards, and mvp votes to support this. 

and he always played hard. a 45 win season in the west in '06 was hardly middling either. especially given his support. which of course you'll claim was championship caliber. 



indiefan23 said:


> Yes, I do. Its not that I don't acknowledge there have been plenty of good things that happened in that time, every time you bring one up I say yes, that's true those are very positive points about Kobe and I'll grant them to you, its that you challenge, ignore and dismiss every single possible negative about him, his attitude towards his team and the game, and how that attitude has poisoned his team to the point where they tried to trade him when Kobe probably only went on the radio trying to force them to trade the other players. You've gotta think about it. His own team, the Lakers, who he won 4 rings with, gave up on Kobe and chose his surrounding players and a group of lesser players from Chicago over him, but, Kobe had a no-trade clause and stopped it. LA was ready to trade a guy who'd just had 35 and 31 PPG seasons because they couldn't take it anymore. Kobe has come out of it disciplines, changed his ways and has done okay, but what happened still happened.


la was also ready to trade shaq. which they did. wilt was traded. so was kareem. so was oscar. they were willing to trade kobe because he ASKED to be traded. the last thing la WANTED to do was trade kobe. 



indiefan23 said:


> Phil talked about Kobe months prior to him starting the 05 season. You mean to think that all changed within a few months and Kobe, a guy he hired a team therapist specializing in narcissism in response to, was now a great guy and leader? It gets way worse from there kflo. Have you read the book? Phil is a smart, honest and forthright person. Is he a hater too when he's honest about Kobe's negatives?


i read the book. it was primarily about 1 season ('04). and phil was talking about hiring his OWN therapist. shaq and kobe had their issues. that was the source of much of the problems within the team that year. and it didn't work out. and that's on both of them. 2 stubborn stars who couldn't put their ego's / insecurities in check. it happens. and it doesn't negate kobe's 9 year peak. their clashes in '01 and '02 ended in titles. their fallout in '04 was more serious, and still resulted in making the finals.


----------



## Seanzie

I see this thread has broken down into Kobe Lovers vs. Kobe Haters, but the article was full of holes, and overall, pretty bad.

You can't turn convoluted math into an argument against a player.


----------



## indiefan23

Seanzie said:


> I see this thread has broken down into Kobe Lovers vs. Kobe Haters, but the article was full of holes, and overall, pretty bad.
> 
> You can't turn convoluted math into an argument against a player.


I'd much rather talk about the math then my supposed hate for a player I consider to be in the top 3 in hoop.

Which holes are you refering to and why is the math convoluted? I thought the math was pretty straight forward to the point that its almost not mathematical at all. You don't even need a formula to understand it.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> the respect for his place in the game is pretty universal. to claim he hasn't had a 9 year peak is ignoring reality. you may not have liked his game over that period, but that's his peak. and he's been recognized with all-nba's, all-defensive awards, and mvp votes to support this.


I fully respect his place in the game. Every time you guys say "Kobe is awesome" or anything at all to that nature I say "Yea, I agree. He's a fantastically talented player." To deny that he didn't have a 'mid-peak slump' of plenty of losing and that he had anything but an integral role to play in that slump is ignoring reality.



> and he always played hard. a 45 win season in the west in '06 was hardly middling either. especially given his support. which of course you'll claim was championship caliber.


I've never claimed that, at all. Honestly kflo, you've probably tried to be the most consistent on here so it would be pretty disappointing if you saying that was anything more then a mistake. I said they were capable of 50-55 wins and maybe making the conference finals if they were lucky with seeding in the playoffs etc. I don't see how they were not. And I've seen Kobe quit on his team in huge, huge games for whichever reasons.



> la was also ready to trade shaq. which they did. wilt was traded. so was kareem. so was oscar. they were willing to trade kobe because he ASKED to be traded. the last thing la WANTED to do was trade kobe.


I call BS on that one and always have. Pure PR. Shaq and Kobe made the finals 4 out of 5 years. There is no way, in hell, if they want to keep Kobe, that they deal Shaq without knowing what Kobe wanted. They were ready to deal Shaq because they knew Kobe wouldn't resign with them unless it was his team, and his alone. Kobe looked into signing with the clippers a few days before the trade. LA's response was NOT "oh well, Kobe might sign with the clippers... well, he's our number one priority so lets deal Shaq without knowing Kobe's wishes and hope he's happy with it." Shaq + Kobe meant millions, upon millions, upon millions of dollars because they were a threat to make the finals every year they played, even if they didn't like each other. The 'only' way Jerry Buss okay's that deal is if keeping Shaq means he's going to lose even more money. If Kobe signs with the clips they become the #1 team in LA and he gets nothing for one of his superstars while the older one is going to break down sooner and the one you lose will last a solid half decade more. If he deals Shaq he keeps Kobe and gets some great players for Shaq. There is 0 way Buss turns down making 100's of millions of dollars because he didn't like Shaq on a personal level or whatever and there is absolutely 0 chance Kobe did not influence Shaq's trade. If Kobe 'wanted' Shaq to stay, there is no way he goes. Its just a pure fact.



> i read the book. it was primarily about 1 season ('04). and phil was talking about hiring his OWN therapist. shaq and kobe had their issues. that was the source of much of the problems within the team that year. and it didn't work out. and that's on both of them. 2 stubborn stars who couldn't put their ego's / insecurities in check. it happens. and it doesn't negate kobe's 9 year peak. their clashes in '01 and '02 ended in titles. their fallout in '04 was more serious, and still resulted in making the finals.


Negate? How do you not factor in letting immaturity breaking up the best 1-2 punch in basketball into a player's evaluation? Still resulted in making the finals? It resulted in them losing a championship in a absolutely embarrassing 1-4 epic collapse job that should have been a sweep. Kobe hogged the ball, took way too many more shots then Shaq and shot 18% from 3, then because he forced Shaq out without realizing how much he actually depended on the big fella to win went on to go 3 games under .500 over the next 3 seasons when he could have been competing for championships. He 'absolutely' could have been there and his immaturity was absolutely why he was not there. I don't even care if Shaq was a dick too, and it hardly matters which percentage of the blame is Shaq (you have to consider that he's gotten along great with all his other teammates though, not that it means he's not to blame, only Shaq/Kobe really know what that percentage is).

In Shaq's defense though. LA 'was' his team. Kobe 'was' trying to take it from him while he was still in his prime. I'd get pissed too. Either way, Shaq's fault in the matter are his own black marks, but they don't negate Kobe's part to play in creating the rift. Kobe wanted to be Michael Jordan, not Scotti Pippen, but only after he had won his Pippen titles he 'signed up' for in 99 when he chose the easy route to winning titles on Shaq's team instead of getting his own team and building it around him. Not that it matters, if you're immaturity, attitude and ego are key factors in breaking up a proven winning team and prevent that team from 1-3 more titles/finals appearances, its a major black mark. To you, maybe you don't care about it, but to me it counts in the - column. Putting self before team always does.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but fact is that if you didn't bother looking up the _relative_ winning %'s of teams Wade/LeBron/MJ/etc. scored 40+, while similtaneously arguing how Bryant's 40+ point games _relative_ other players isn't that good, then you lack both common sense and a basic high school education. There's no way your argument has merit unless you list those stats. Of course, your stats would probably be inaccurate and/or made up anyway, so your efforts make no difference in the end since your credibility is nil.


Uh, you're just lying. That was not my point in any way whatsoever. Read what I actually said.



reality said:


> Who are these high totals against? If you believe this scoring to win theory, you may be surprised. I'm going to call it the 27, 32, 60, 32, 22, 33, 23, 37, 22, 52 club. Those are the opponent season win totals of Kobe's top 10 scoring games. 1.5 quality wins vs Dallas and Houston... the only .450+ teams. 1.5 as Vs. Houston he scored 53 twice in the same season going 1-1. LA was supposed to win the others. Its really a revision to say Kobe was shooting
> "because its the only way they could win" instead of padding his stats.


I never said that part of the analysis was relative to other players in any way whatsoever. I didn't even allude to others playing tougher comp. The only part of my whole analysis that's relative is the differential. Exactly how many things have you fabricated about me, Cap? You're a pure hater man. Are you just a liar or are you making honest mistakes? See, the point I was making is that Kobe's highest scoring games are not 'scoring because he needs to for his team to win to win' because his team should easily be winning those games anyway.



> I have looked it up myself; he has many 40+ point games in both the regular season and playoffs against top ranked defenses _and_ top ranked teams; Spurs, Rockets, Nuggets, Magic, Mavs, Cavs, etc. The fact that you did not list those games shows exactly why people laugh at your points; it's extremely easy to look up, so no one is fooled into believing anything you wrote in your article.


I took his top ten scoring nights cuz when people say he's a great scorer those are the games they talk about. 61 vs NY. 81 vs TO. 62 vs DAL. My argument was he pads his stats beating up on crap teams to make his scoring moe visible so I used his most visible games. Hey, start your own blog, write your own articles, draw your own conclusions, use your own examples and provide your own stats and then you can discuss Kobe's medium scoring games. I'm all for it honestly. But in this thread we are discussing my blog, not whatever stuff you're making up to talk about.





> 1. Got the 04-05 Lakers' win total wrong (said 33, was actually 34).
> 2. Got Mihm's PER with the Cavs wrong (said 16.2, was actually 16.6).
> 3. Got the Lakers' record without Bryant in 04-05 wrong (said 4-5, was actually 6-8).
> 4. And Almost assuredly inaccurately calculated his points to assist average incorrectly based on your terrible math and high school level statistics education.
> 
> I could go on but it's already blatantly obvious.
> 
> No, pretty much everyone is laughing at you in this thread and anyone that wanted to defend you hasn't actually shown up, save for some lame attempt by the OP, who has predictably skedaddled.


Heh, kind of like your grade school reading comprehension as shown above? Or that you're best shots regarding my accuracy involves my middle finger accidentally hitting the 4 key beside the 3 key. Or two stats I pulled up from memory and was off by .4 in one and 1 single winning percentage point? ;0 Or that none of these are actually from my article but from random forum posts while you claim they're in my article? I'm not claiming perfection anyway, but I am claiming pretty sound accuracy and if you do find an error I'd be happy to correct it.



> You haven't talked hoop this whole thread beyond lame trolling attempts masked as "analysis" by an admitted statistics layman. In reality, it's _you_ who needs to let _me_ know when _you're_ ready to talk hoop.
> 
> Of course, that day likely won't come and we'll hear yet again why a computer programmer who admittedly has no background in statistics or mathematics is most qualified to equate ppg-to-apg as if it measures anything significant other than the writer's preconceived notions which have already been well debunked throughout this thread and continue to make him looked foolish with each and every attempt to equate Bryant to Reggie freaking Miller. :laugh:


Me? I didn't want to talk about me. I wanted to talk about hoop. Umm... I have a background in sports statistics.

I've got a BCS. I have a minor in mathematics. I have a background in statistics. I've got a background in data mining techniques. I used to work for the Morgon Stanley Credit Risk Team where we used super computers to analyze and determine trends on the stock market, the results upon which Morgan Stanley would literally risk 100's of millions of dollars per transaction.

I've been paid before to do Sports stats. They're kind of child's play. The results have received international press coverage.

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=0ce5e374-73ea-4402-9589-9629da9c7996


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/02/19/iginla_comes_through/

I'm not a braggart so I didn't go pulling rank. I think its weak and that most people are capable of doing mathy type things. The beauty of something like math is that right and wrong don't depend on influence or rank within a community but rather only in your method and results. I think its more telling that since you're unable to actually argue against the method you've got to attack my character. You said something about how I'm not talking hoop, what in your criticisms about my statistic in this post have been about hoop at all? They're just personal attacks on me which are baseless as you don't even know me. I can assure you, I'm quite intelligent, very well educated, experienced and quite qualified to perform such a simple task like this.

Anyway, you can apologize for inventing things I didn't actually say and claim people are laughing at me for them, or become the newest member of my ignore list. This will be the last time I put eny effort into responding to such foolishness.


----------



## Cap

Again, everything you said has already been debunked. You can't list basic stats like win totals or PER accurately in this thread (and it's not just "accidentally hitting the 3 instead of the 4 key", you made the same error about the Lakers' 04-05 win total at least half a dozen times by my count). Knowing this, there's no reason anyone here should believe you're capable of adding numbers correctly in your article. Your methodology on your statistics has already been debunked at the beginning of this thread, where you claim it's an accurate stat with a bigger sample yet there's no evidence or mathematical proof that shows this to be true, something you continue to ignore.

And yet again, you _still_ fail to refute that without doing an analysis of the competition Wade/Jordan/LeBron/etc. scored 40+ points on, it is absolutely *meaningless* to say Kobe mostly scores against crappy competition. This can’t possibly matter or be relevant if Jordan/Wade/LeBron/etc. are also scoring 40+ against mostly crappy competition, yet your best rebuttal was "do your own research". Just a pathetic cop out, and again that’s why your posts are laughed at. Instead you did an analysis of his top 10 scoring games because, and this is hilarious, when people say Kobe is a great scorer "those are the game people talk about". No, sorry, people say Kobe is a great scorer because he continues to score at a ridiculously historical rate while also being a great all around player, averaging 30+ ppg, 5+ rpg, and 5+ assists per game over the last 3 consecutive postseasons in route to 2 Finals and 1 title. Not to mention his numerous other impressive postseasons series during the 3-peat. 

And now, after being called out about your qualifications, you try to pump up your credibility (which is interesting coming from a guy that won’t reveal his name, credentials, experience, etc. until now) that you came up with a "Clutch Factor" statistic for the NHL? Yet your links claim that this "Clutch Factor" stat was developed by a Calgary eye surgeon named Arun Lakra. Are you truly trying to claim you’re a Calgary eye surgeon who previously did statistical analysis for Morgan Stanley equity while programming as a computer scientist in his spare time? 

Forgive me, but the fact that you want to put me on your ignore list is all too predictable; of course you want to ignore me and others, you’re getting taken to school. You’re trying to gain credibility but your personal background seems so implausible that it becomes comical to read.


----------



## indiefan23

Cap said:


> Again, everything you said has already been debunked. You can't list basic stats like win totals or PER accurately in this thread (and it's not just "accidentally hitting the 3 instead of the 4 key", you made the same error about the Lakers' 04-05 win total at least half a dozen times by my count). Knowing this, there's no reason anyone here should believe you're capable of adding numbers correctly in your article. Your methodology on your statistics has already been debunked at the beginning of this thread, where you claim it's an accurate stat with a bigger sample yet there's no evidence or mathematical proof that shows this to be true, something you continue to ignore.


Big sigh. I hit the typo in my article and referenced it a few times. You pointed it out, I changed it. Its one win and a typo.



> And yet again, you _still_ fail to refute that without doing an analysis of the competition Wade/Jordan/LeBron/etc. scored 40+ points on, it is absolutely *meaningless* to say Kobe mostly scores against crappy competition. This can’t possibly matter or be relevant if Jordan/Wade/LeBron/etc. are also scoring 40+ against mostly crappy competition, yet your best rebuttal was "do your own research".


Its in response to "Kobe has to score huge points for his team to win". What Jordan and Wade do (44 win opponent average) does not even matter because the point is that the statement I quoted is wrong because neither statement I'm challenging or making change whatsoever taken in context with just Kobe or every player alive. I said all this in my last post.



> And now, after being called out about your qualifications, you try to pump up your credibility (which is interesting coming from a guy that won’t reveal his name, credentials, experience, etc. until now) that you came up with a "Clutch Factor" statistic for the NHL? Yet your links claim that this "Clutch Factor" stat was developed by a Calgary eye surgeon named Arun Lakra. Are you truly trying to claim you’re a Calgary eye surgeon who previously did statistical analysis for Morgan Stanley equity while programming as a computer scientist in his spare time?
> 
> Forgive me, but the fact that you want to put me on your ignore list is all too predictable; of course you want to ignore me and others, you’re getting taken to school. You’re trying to gain credibility but your personal background seems so implausible that it becomes comical to read.


Yea, he was my employer. Eye surgeons don't have that background which is why he hired me, because I do. I didn't put you on my ignore list but said I would if you didn't respond with something a little more reasonable. You were even more unreasonable and just ignored everything I said, so now I do bid you a welcome to my list, and I'll ignore everything you say in kind. TTYL, or not.


----------



## indiefan23

Much better... this thread is looking cleaner to my eyes already.

Anyway, this is just a BTW to the guy from here who came on and started talking trash on my site.

I'm perfectly okay with you coming on and talking trash on my site if you'd like to. But its just trolling to do it my my humor based basketball expert post and not the Kobe one. Its kind of just hating on me cuz of this one little argument to come and attack a totally light hearted piece like that. Also, its just plain cowardly to come on, state how dumb I am, and not leave your name. Be relevant and don't be a coward, Kobe Stan, cuz that's all you've given me to go off, and that's the only way you appear.

Other then that, thanks for the feedback. You're welcome any time to provide more.

Cheers,


----------



## Cap

Good call on waiving the white flag, after getting so throughly pummeled this should surprise no one. And even worse, now you're making up this "44 win average" for Wade and Jordan that is not actually stated in your article nor is your methodology stated here, though going a step further and lying about not just your numbers but your credentials really says a lot about your trolldom. But you are actually one of the more entertaining Kobe trolls we've had here, so congrats on that distinction and all your effort. Some impressive wimp-outs in general. Oh, and don't think for a second anyone sane here backs you up on anything you said, no one's on your side after 30 pages, after all.


----------



## Dornado

indiefan23 said:


> Much better... this thread is looking cleaner to my eyes already.
> 
> Anyway, this is just a BTW to the guy from here who came on and started talking trash on my site.
> 
> I'm perfectly okay with you coming on and talking trash on my site if you'd like to. But its just trolling to do it my my humor based basketball expert post and not the Kobe one. Its kind of just hating on me cuz of this one little argument to come and attack a totally light hearted piece like that. Also, its just plain cowardly to come on, state how dumb I am, and not leave your name. Be relevant and don't be a coward, Kobe Stan, cuz that's all you've given me to go off, and that's the only way you appear.
> 
> Other then that, thanks for the feedback. You're welcome any time to provide more.
> 
> Cheers,


You chose this place to serve as an advertising forum for your articles, you get what you get.


On a side note... and maybe this is because I'm old and unhip... but does someone want to explain what it is to be a 'stan'? (I'm assuming it means 'irrational lover of', something along those lines) and where the phrase came from?


----------



## Ras

indiefan23 said:


> So why am I a hater because I'm counting something that 'is' there that I value quite a bit? I'm willing to accept all kinds of positive things about the guy, I'm just willing to accept his negatives too and it drives you crazy I think.


No, you're going out of your way to make him look as bad as possible. You're doing everything in your power to try and reduce him as a player.


----------



## indiefan23

Ras said:


> No, you're going out of your way to make him look as bad as possible. You're doing everything in your power to try and reduce him as a player.


But I'm not. I said he was a top 3 player, a completely awesome talent and said he deserved his title and played well in the finals. I could have focused on the stretch where he reverted to his old habits and started shooting too much, when was it, game 4??? But I thought he made a much larger effort. I don't really get how I've 'reduced' him as a player. I'm stating that he has a lot of responsibility for a whole lot of losing after making the finals 4/5 years. He does. Its not a reduction to challenge how people try to ignore his role in the losing and blame it all on his teammates as if 'they' had anything to do with the most dominant big in history getting traded and as if he had 0 talent around him. Its just not hate to look at negatives and positives.


----------



## indiefan23

Dornado said:


> You chose this place to serve as an advertising forum for your articles, you get what you get.


Uh... someone else posted my article here, not me. And I already said its cool if the coward wants to come and do wahtever, getting what I get is okay, its classless behavior though.


----------



## indiefan23

indiefan23 said:


> Uh... someone else posted my article here, not me. And I already said its cool if the coward wants to come and do wahtever, getting what I get is okay, its classless behavior though.


Whoever it was closed my other thread where I was trying to have a real discussion instead of this crap, that's incredibly lame. Does anyone mod the mods on here?


----------



## Cap

lmao.


----------



## Basel

indiefan23 said:


> Whoever it was closed my other thread where I was trying to have a real discussion instead of this crap, that's incredibly lame. Does anyone mod the mods on here?


I closed it - you tried to have a real discussion and it failed miserably. I mod the Mods on here. Sorry.


----------



## indiefan23

Basel said:


> I closed it - you tried to have a real discussion and it failed miserably. I mod the Mods on here. Sorry.


Uh, you didn't let it start. Christ, is this actually a Laker forum or something??? If it is, I apologize and had no idea and like I said, I didn't actually post the Kobe article here, someone else did. If you're modding the mods why aren't you doing your job and why are there so many Laker mods? All the mods in this thread have just joined in with the trolls like game and cap and encouraged them for the most part.

Like, shouldn't there be a little balance? Don't you think its a little questionable when 80% of your mods and yourself have Laker avatars and sigs? What did I do here? Talked about an article I wrote that dared to say Kobe just may have been responsible for some of the losing that occured over the past 5 years.

Again, if it's predominantly an LA based fan community, or discussing negatives of Kobe is not permitted here, hey, its your rules, or whatever, that's cool and I was not meaning in any way to be an agitator. No one is perfect, and I shouldn't feed people who troll or let them bug me, but at least an effort to be fair would be appreciated.


----------



## PauloCatarino

indiefan23 said:


> Uh, you didn't let it start. Christ, is this actually a Laker forum or something??? If it is, I apologize and had no idea and like I said, I didn't actually post the Kobe article here, someone else did. If you're modding the mods why aren't you doing your job and why are there so many Laker mods? All the mods in this thread have just joined in with the trolls like game and cap and encouraged them for the most part.
> 
> Like, shouldn't there be a little balance? Don't you think its a little questionable when 80% of your mods and yourself have Laker avatars and sigs? What did I do here? *Talked about an article I wrote that dared to say Kobe just may have been responsible for some of the losing that occured over the past 5 years.*
> 
> Again, if it's predominantly an LA based fan community, or discussing negatives of Kobe is not permitted here, hey, its your rules, or whatever, that's cool and I was not meaning in any way to be an agitator. No one is perfect, and I shouldn't feed people who troll or let them bug me, but at least an effort to be fair would be appreciated.


Hmmm... From what i could read:
1- When Kobe has high scoring games, he tends to pass less;
2- The Lakers' winning percentage is higher when Kobe scores more.

So... meh.


----------



## Ras

indiefan23 said:


> Uh, you didn't let it start. Christ, is this actually a Laker forum or something??? If it is, I apologize and had no idea and like I said, I didn't actually post the Kobe article here, someone else did. If you're modding the mods why aren't you doing your job and why are there so many Laker mods? All the mods in this thread have just joined in with the trolls like game and cap and encouraged them for the most part.
> 
> Like, shouldn't there be a little balance? Don't you think its a little questionable when 80% of your mods and yourself have Laker avatars and sigs? What did I do here? Talked about an article I wrote that dared to say Kobe just may have been responsible for some of the losing that occured over the past 5 years.
> 
> Again, if it's predominantly an LA based fan community, or discussing negatives of Kobe is not permitted here, hey, its your rules, or whatever, that's cool and I was not meaning in any way to be an agitator. No one is perfect, and I shouldn't feed people who troll or let them bug me, but at least an effort to be fair would be appreciated.


It's not predominantly an LA based fan community, and it's somewhat comical because the haters of whatever great player say the same thing. All the LeBron haters accuse everyone here of being a LeBron supporter and say that you can't say anything negative about him without backlash. Same goes to you and a few others about Kobe. What you fail to realize is that it's your own bias against the player that causes a backlash from even rational posters that aren't fans, but you simply perceive it as everyone else being biased because you can't see your own. It's not just LA fans, or Cavs fans, it's just rational basketball fans telling you that you're just being overtly biased.

You can be negative about any player and people won't necessarily respond, but if your bias just shows through, you will get a backlash because you're just being really biased.


----------



## indiefan23

PauloCatarino said:


> Hmmm... From what i could read:
> 1- When Kobe has high scoring games, he tends to pass less;
> 2- The Lakers' winning percentage is higher when Kobe scores more.
> 
> So... meh.


I don't think its a meh... his major scoring nights come against weaker teams which is why they win more and Kobe was padding for sports center. I don't think there's a logical argument for why Kobe would need to score more against weaker teams, but less against stronger teams, to win. If that's the case I don't know how its not padding stats against the dregs.


----------



## Kneejoh

You're stupid. Maybe it's just that Kobe plays the same against both teams but one isn't as good as the other so he scores more against that team. Just like Lebron had 42 against the Heat on March 2nd on 62% shooting and 21 shots and then only 4 days later 21 points on 15 shots on 33% shooting. Was Lebron padding his stats against worse teams too?

52 points against the Knicks on Feb. 4th
16 points against the Lakers on Feb. 8th
47 against Indiana next game

55 points against Milwaukee Feb. 20th
20 against Detroit next game

41 points Nov. 8 and 11th against Chicago and Milwaukee
22 next game against Detroit.


----------



## indiefan23

Ras said:


> It's not predominantly an LA based fan community, and it's somewhat comical because the haters of whatever great player say the same thing. All the LeBron haters accuse everyone here of being a LeBron supporter and say that you can't say anything negative about him without backlash. Same goes to you and a few others about Kobe. What you fail to realize is that it's your own bias against the player that causes a backlash from even rational posters that aren't fans, but you simply perceive it as everyone else being biased because you can't see your own. It's not just LA fans, or Cavs fans, it's just rational basketball fans telling you that you're just being overtly biased.
> 
> You can be negative about any player and people won't necessarily respond, but if your bias just shows through, you will get a backlash because you're just being really biased.


Umm... you look at the avatars/sigs of everyone 'back lashing' in this thread, Ras, and tell me which player/team is sitting there in almost every single one... I don't know how saying Kobe was responsible for a lot of the losing in LA is bias. I really don't. He was the best player on the team. He had other players on the team who were in fact very talented. Not win a ring talented but more talented then 33, 45, 41. I also say he's responsible for a lot of the winning that went on this year which did include a ring. I didn't take it away from him that he was stacked. Kobe played well. I even specifically stated above that Kobe is an awesome, awesome basketball player and is easily in the top 3 in the league. Is that bias too?

This is exactly what happened. I said to a friend "Kobe had difficulty scoring and facilitating others in the offense at the same time." My friend said I was crazy and 'bias' and refuted it by saying Kobe had high assist numbers. And I said that's on average, when he's really scoring he just doesn't play the same way. Then he said prove it. So I did. Not loving Kobe and disliking his negatives don't mean I can't have an informed opinion. So I'll say to you, prove I'm bias.

I think the reality is that instead of just posting bias hate I actually put time and effort into a reasonable (even if harsh) assessment. I don't think Kobe's fans are used to someone being rational when disliking the guy. Honestly, its hardly Kobe that I think are the issue, its fans over rating the guy claiming he's not responsible for any negative actions at all... just a single example... Kobe's fans claim he had nothing to do with Shaq being traded, but Kobe actually admits he had a lot to do with it and cites his own immaturity as a cause of the trade, but to this day, you'll still read people saying Shaq was traded because he said "pay me" to Jerry Buss one day. Just because I don't have motivation to see everything he does in rosey glasses means I'm less bias in that regard, if more in another.

I fully accept that I tend to see his negatives more, but I accept his positives exist and it can be seen in my compliments peppered all over the place. I mean, seriously, I blatantly state that I'm comparing Kobe among his peers and list probably the 5 or 6 best scorers of the last 30 years. I looked at t-mac and said "Naw, t-mac is not on Kobe's level at all" so I didn't include him. I even cut Vince from the list. If I'm just bias, why do I rate Kobe so highly? Honestly, I just accept the guys's negatives for what they are, and his crazy game for what it is. Those two things have been fighting to see who wins for years (like any player). Kobe's such an interesting combination of both of them its no wonder he's such a polarizing figure.

You know, if you point out something that's actually totally bias in my article, I'd be happy to change it. You seem like an intelligent guy Ras and there's no reason we can't be civil. I'd honestly still like to talk to someone about the stat itself instead of people who have an agenda to say it sucks, which is predominantly whats happened on here.


----------



## indiefan23

thug_immortal8 said:


> You're stupid. Maybe it's just that Kobe plays the same against both teams but one isn't as good as the other so he scores more against that team. Just like Lebron had 42 against the Heat on March 2nd on 62% shooting and 21 shots and then only 4 days later 21 points on 15 shots on 33% shooting. Was Lebron padding his stats against worse teams too?
> 
> 52 points against the Knicks on Feb. 4th
> 16 points against the Lakers on Feb. 8th
> 47 against Indiana next game
> 
> 55 points against Milwaukee Feb. 20th
> 20 against Detroit next game
> 
> 41 points Nov. 8 and 11th against Chicago and Milwaukee
> 22 next game against Detroit.


Yea, I think Lebron has been guilty of beating up on crappy teams to pad his stats on multiple occasions. His 3 pointer bonanza against the Bucks being the most glaring example. But what I'm really examining is how the passing game is affected by that scoring. When Lebron scores more (via padding or not) he actually assists significantly more, not less.

Again, the point of showing the weak competition is in response to the argument that Kobe has to score big for his team to win, not a criticism of Kobe vs other players. As was pointed out earlier by someone else here, all players pad their stats. If it was winning that motivated Kobe's biggest scoring nights he would have more points vs the strong teams as they would need his scoring the most then, and less against the weaker teams as they would not need it as much.


----------



## PauloCatarino

indiefan23 said:


> I don't think its a meh... his major scoring nights come against weaker teams which is why they win more and Kobe was padding for sports center. I don't think there's a *logical argument *for why Kobe would need to score more against weaker teams, but less against stronger teams, to win. If that's the case I don't know how its not padding stats against the dregs.


You see, young grasshopper, what i fail to see is the interest in the point you are trying to make.
So when Kobe goes into "attack mode" he stops looking for his teammates. He wants to "padd his stats", 
So whar?

The FACT seems to be that whatever Kobe Bryant is doing on court appears to be working. Doesn't it?

Your "point" could be of interest if you were saying something the likes of "when Kobe Bryant starts playing one-on-five, he is hurting the team". But that doesn't seem to be the case, considering the team's winning percentage when Kobe goes trigger-happy. 
Like, say, ~when Michael Jordan decided to be Magic and started amassing triple-doubles and the Bulls' were losing half those games.

I personnaly think you are nitpicking in order to cloud the accomplishments of a player you clearly don't like.

So when Lebron scores a lot he also dishes more? Groovy. I bet Lebron was taking solace on that while watching the NBA FInals.

No need to fix what's not broken.

Oh, and btw, you are forgetting a simple thing: the coach.


----------



## Bon]{eRz

Very interesting and entertaining thread. Have to applaud Indiefan23 for his persistence, if not the quality of his analysis. 

A few points I want to add to what's being already said:

1) One glaring hole about this stat is that it doesn't take in to account the absolute number of assists a player gets in >40 games. For eg, in >40 games Nique's assists increase from 2.65 to 3.3, whereas Kobe's drop from 5.19 to 3.9. Your assist differential stat is more favourable for Nique than Kobe, and your analysis concludes that this proves Kobe's a selfish player looking to get his own in his high scoring games compared to a player such a Nique... even though Kobe is still getting more assists than Nique. Faulty logic, no?

To take this to an extreme, you could have player A who averages 30pts 10*** and in games >40 his assists drop to 9, and player B who averages 30pts 1ass and in >40 games his assists remain at 1. Your analysis would conclude that player A is selfish in >40 games, but player B isn't, even though A is still averaging 8 more assists than B. 

Doesn't make sense.

2) You've stated Kwame's turnover rate /36 minutes is better than Shaq's in your defense of Kwame several times. I would expect even a casual basketball fan (let alone a statistician) to know that Shaq would be getting many more touches /36mins than Kwame, especially in Shaq's prime, and this would affect their turnover numbers dramatically. You've tended to cherry pick which stats to use in your arguments, such as per/36 figures, or fg%, in favour of more useful stats such as ts%, and in this case Kwame turnovers/36 minutes compared to Shaq you completely ignore usage rates.

3) Your analysis of some of the players who have surrounded Kobe over the years is questionable (Smush and Vujacic laughable even). Those two players must be in the bottom quintile of all players in the league, Smush especially considering he's not even in the NBA anymore. But you may be a better talent evaluator than all the other posters here (did even one other person agree with your analysis of smush and vujacic??) and all the NBA front offices too ;0 its possible...

4) You've stated a number of times that Kobe got his high scoring nights against low quality teams, as a point that detracts from his scoring achievements. For this to count as a negative against Kobe, you need to provide some context by comparing the winning % of Kobe's opponents in the >40 games to those of other high scorers, or the average winning % of all opponents in all games where a player's scored >40. My money would be that on average, this happens more against teams with lower winning %'s, rendering your point re: Kobe moot.

5) Its been predominantly Laker fans responding for the same reason it would be Magic fans if the thread was about Dwight Howard, or Heat fans if it was about Wade. You've conveniently labelled anyone who's provided logical reason why your analysis is faulty as Laker/Kobe homers and put them on ignore. You seem to get extremely defensive of your work (probably because you've invested a lot of time in it), instead of being open to feed back you ignore anyone who critisizes your analysis. As someone who really enjoys the stat side of basketball, I love coming across new stats like this (even if in this case to me this doesn't seem to be all that useful), so I'd ecourage you to continue data mining to come up with something new and useful. 

btw I'm in the Lebron camp, so take this as objective feedback rather than painting me with the yellow and purple paint brush.


----------



## indiefan23

PauloCatarino said:


> You see, young grasshopper, what i fail to see is the interest in the point you are trying to make.
> So when Kobe goes into "attack mode" he stops looking for his teammates. He wants to "padd his stats",
> So whar?
> 
> The FACT seems to be that whatever Kobe Bryant is doing on court appears to be working. Doesn't it?
> 
> Your "point" could be of interest if you were saying something the likes of "when Kobe Bryant starts playing one-on-five, he is hurting the team". But that doesn't seem to be the case, considering the team's winning percentage when Kobe goes trigger-happy.


Not really the case at all. Stating the team does better when he scores big is really just stating they do better when they play crap teams. The team's winning percentage goes up quite marginally in comparison to other teams who play the scrub teams. One reason the spurs are so consistent is they play every team the same way. They don't play a different more risky game when playing scrubs to benefit the stats of one player. You should 'never' lose to the Memphises and Charlottes and Clippers of the league. It should be an automatic win, but for LA its not really the case, those losses happen and frankly its embarrassing and causes your team to lose confidence in the long run. Other elite teams knowing you lost to the dregs also get a mental edge on you.



> Like, say, ~when Michael Jordan decided to be Magic and started amassing triple-doubles and the Bulls' were losing half those games.


Except Doug Collins decided that, not MJ, who was doing what his coach wanted him to do for the team.



> I personnaly think you are nitpicking in order to cloud the accomplishments of a player you clearly don't like.
> 
> So when Lebron scores a lot he also dishes more? Groovy. I bet Lebron was taking solace on that while watching the NBA FInals.


Menh, Lebron achieved more then Kobe ever did with lackluster teammates. If playing on a stacked team is a good reason to be a better player, then Adam Morrison is better then most of the league. I don't like Kobe, but that's because I don't like his individualistic approach to the game. Nothing more, nothing less. Its got nothing to do with my opinion being valid or not. I also don't like Hitler and can have a pretty reasonable opinion of him.


----------



## Kneejoh

indiefan23 said:


> Yea, I think Lebron has been guilty of beating up on crappy teams to pad his stats on multiple occasions. His 3 pointer bonanza against the Bucks being the most glaring example. But what I'm really examining is how the passing game is affected by that scoring. When Lebron scores more (via padding or not) he actually assists significantly more, not less.
> 
> Again, the point of showing the weak competition is in response to the argument that Kobe has to score big for his team to win, not a criticism of Kobe vs other players. As was pointed out earlier by someone else here, all players pad their stats. If it was winning that motivated Kobe's biggest scoring nights he would have more points vs the strong teams as they would need his scoring the most then, and less against the weaker teams as they would not need it as much.


And the point I'm making is that you're nitpicking Kobe's high scoring games. You've said numerous times in this thread that Kobe is an overrated scorer and that the only reason people think he is a good scorer is because he had those big scoring games. Well I'm just coming back at you saying that that's what every player in the league does. And yes Kobe is the best scorer in the game because it's not like he's the only one that gets to beat the Raptors up for 81, the Mavs for 62, the Blazers for 65, the Knicks for 61. Other players have these opportunities too when they play those teams and they can't do it.


----------



## Plastic Man

thug_immortal8 said:


> And the point I'm making is that you're nitpicking Kobe's high scoring games. You've said numerous times in this thread that Kobe is an overrated scorer and that the only reason people think he is a good scorer is because he had those big scoring games. Well I'm just coming back at you saying that that's what every player in the league does. And yes Kobe is the best scorer in the game because it's not like he's the only one that gets to beat the Raptors up for 81, the Mavs for 62, the Blazers for 65, the Knicks for 61. *Other players have these opportunities too when they play those teams and they can't do it.*


It's not that they can't, they simply choose not to pad their stats while also recording more assists. In conclusion these players are of course less selfish than Bryant.


----------



## indiefan23

Bon]{eRz said:


> Very interesting and entertaining thread. Have to applaud Indiefan23 for his persistence, if not the quality of his analysis.


Hey, thanks! I knew people appreciated it cuz I got PM's/Rep. I can't blame peeps for not getting into this mess of a thread though. It really just descended.



> A few points I want to add to what's being already said:
> 
> 1) One glaring hole about this stat is that it doesn't take in to account the absolute number of assists a player gets in >40 games. For eg, in >40 games Nique's assists increase from 2.65 to 3.3, whereas Kobe's drop from 5.19 to 3.9. Your assist differential stat is more favourable for Nique than Kobe, and your analysis concludes that this proves Kobe's a selfish player looking to get his own in his high scoring games compared to a player such a Nique... even though Kobe is still getting more assists than Nique. Faulty logic, no? To take this to an extreme, you could have player A who averages 30pts 10*** and in games >40 his assists drop to 9, and player B who averages 30pts 1ass and in >40 games his assists remain at 1. Your analysis would conclude that player A is selfish in >40 games, but player B isn't, even though A is still averaging 8 more assists than B.
> 
> Doesn't make sense.


Ah, point well taken. 'selfish' in this case is a bit different but I didn't really clarify it... kind of implied it, but whichever. I wanted to make a stat that reflected how players changed their game to get their points. Its not a how much they pass stat, but how much they change their passing stat. Its pretty easy to look at a guy like Leborn and show his assist averages and how many triple doubles he has etc. People will respond with valid arguments about each player's role in the offense etc. I'm trying to do something different. Accept a player for who they and their game is on their team. Take their average assists and say "okay, that's their production given all their circumstance" and compare it to their production when you only change one factor, their scoring. So while 'Nique might be more selfish by averages, the argument given by Kobe's supporters is its unfair to players like 'Nique as they were asked to do different things on their teams given their offenses. So I accepted that, normalized average assists, and this stat specifically shows how the assist game changes as a factor in players having higher scoring games. I say that a guy who stops passing to teammates to get an extra 5-10 points on their total is selfish. 'Nique, to his low passing credit, did not actually do this. Overall could you call him selfish? Sure you could, however my Kobe loving friend refuses to accept the APG argument and its kind of valid. My stat is useless in any kind of assist totals argument because I've made APG normal and irrelevant. Everything in my stat is in respect to scoring. I think a lot of people get confused since they're so used to seeing stats on a per game basis. A lot of people didn't get that earlier and started making the usual arguments of why Kobe's passing totals are lower then x player's.



> 2) You've stated Kwame's turnover rate /36 minutes is better than Shaq's in your defense of Kwame several times. I would expect even a casual basketball fan (let alone a statistician) to know that Shaq would be getting many more touches /36mins than Kwame, especially in Shaq's prime, and this would affect their turnover numbers dramatically. You've tended to cherry pick which stats to use in your arguments, such as per/36 figures, or fg%, in favour of more useful stats such as ts%, and in this case Kwame turnovers/36 minutes compared to Shaq you completely ignore usage rates.


Yet again, totally granted. In my defense, I've always qualified this with "Kwame is no Shaq, by any means" which is admitting there's a large grain of salt attached. /36 minutes though its relevant. When players get more minutes their /36 numbers very, very regularly improve as hoop is very much a flow/rhythm game. Either way, I was never saying Kwame had a better handle then Shaq, I was merely pointing out that you know, even while Kwame wasn't Shaq, look at these numbers, he wasn't actually dropping the rock every time down the floor and had plenty of games where he did just the opposite.

TS% I don't quite get as its a stat that harms Kobe and helps players like Jordan/Wade/Lebron. Bron's TS% puts him 19'th in the NBA adn Kobe 86'th. I really don't like the stat very much. It shows your % of scoring points but not how you shoot from the field. Look at Jose Calderone. He just is not a more efficient scorer then Prime Shaq. Look at this simple flaw. Drawing (but missing) lots of foul shots kills your TS%, but will make defensive players have to sit and back off you at the end of games when you really need to score to win. Does TS% take into account front court fouls for bigs? Not really. Is Yao a better scorer in the post then Shaq cuz he hits 80% from the line? Not really. Its a good stat, its just limited in what it shows. And does not show how effectively you put it in the hole from t field, which I call scoring, at all.



> 3) Your analysis of some of the players who have surrounded Kobe over the years is questionable (Smush and Vujacic laughable even). Those two players must be in the bottom quintile of all players in the league, Smush especially considering he's not even in the NBA anymore. But you may be a better talent evaluator than all the other posters here (did even one other person agree with your analysis of smush and vujacic??) and all the NBA front offices too ;0 its possible...


All I've ever claimed about Smush is that he had potential to be a much better player. While in LA he shot 45% and had plenty of solid games and stretches. Vujacic is a defensive pest. When he got minutes/touches/shots last year cuz Ariza/Bynum went down he played 'really' well showing that potential. Part of what I was saying is that role players seem to peak, get frustrated playing with Kobe and eventually tune him out. I don't pretend its all Kobe, or every player who regresses is cuz of Kobe, but he's got to take some of the blame for this trend. Even Odom, who entered his prime the same time he came to LA, has never really regained his form, swagger or consistency he had with the Heat.

Its my opinion that Kobe's style of play held back his role players as much as their lower caliber held them back. If they sucked so intensely why were they 15 games over .500 in January with predominantly the same core group of guys and before Pau showed up? I ain't Buynuming that +5 points +4 boards and +.5 blocks from a player still only playing under 30 minutes a game is the reason and a role player showing up who plays fewer minutes is just Fishing for excuses. They are part of it, but the biggest change that happened was Kobe let his scoring average drop below 30 PPG and started playing team ball, stopped taking as many 3's and every non scoring stat went up. Once Pau showed up the Lake show was stacked once again. But it just can't be ignored. Kobe with those same teammates was not just winning games, the team was elite and on pace for over 55 wins.



> 4) You've stated a number of times that Kobe got his high scoring nights against low quality teams, as a point that detracts from his scoring achievements. For this to count as a negative against Kobe, you need to provide some context by comparing the winning % of Kobe's opponents in the >40 games to those of other high scorers, or the average winning % of all opponents in all games where a player's scored >40. My money would be that on average, this happens more against teams with lower winning %'s, rendering your point re: Kobe moot.


I never actually said this detracted from the achievement itself. Cap and others continuously took what I said out of context. Its possible I may have strayed into calling it a detraction it response to them, but what I stated and stand behind is that the idea that Kobe has to score big just for his team to win, which was what his MVP PR campaign continuously said in 2006, and his fans repeated constantly, is just not true. If it were Kobe's highest points and highest attempts would not come against lackluster teams when they obviously don't need him to score as much because the competition sucked. I'm willing to bet that in those games you'll find Kobe's highest assist totals.

After my article was mis-represented though I looked at the numbers and it does appear as a detraction as both Wade and Jordan do score to win against significantly tougher competition.



> 5) Its been predominantly Laker fans responding for the same reason it would be Magic fans if the thread was about Dwight Howard, or Heat fans if it was about Wade. You've conveniently labelled anyone who's provided logical reason why your analysis is faulty as Laker/Kobe homers and put them on ignore.


Hmm... not really. Two things. There were what, 5 mods on here posting with Kobe/Laker stuff all over their sigs/avatars. (can we not get a better name then 'avatar' for avatar? It stinks). After the admin closed the thread where I wanted to leave this BS behind and said I'd 'failed horribly to have a discussion on it' I could sense the bitterness he felt towards what I'd said, and honestly started thinking this was a Laker forum.

Second, I put 3 people on ignore. Game, Cap and Patchwork. I took Patchwork off after thinking about it for a bit though and realized that instead of inventing stats he just used stats from the Clippers which I didn't notice. Before that though the guy was posting false stats contradicting my correct stats and posting over and over how I was a moron who didn't do any research and everyone was laughing at me. So yea, I put him on ignore. But it was a mistake. Game and Cap both trolled this thread though and made every possible error in judgment they could refusing to ever concede I've made any decent points at all when I actually had. I don't really want to go back into Game's trash. I got sucked in to that. Cap I put on ignore after he said my entire article was based on this competition thing you just said, I explained to him just as I did to you what I actually said in the article was it meant he was not shooting those shots to win. I never alluded even once to this sucking in comparison to anyone else. Only that this is pretty obvious stat padding and should be treated as such. When a guy states in the locker room "I'm gonna go score 50 tonight" and then goes out and does it, its pre-meditated. I just don't see how its not. It is.



> You seem to get extremely defensive of your work (probably because you've invested a lot of time in it), instead of being open to feed back you ignore anyone who critisizes your analysis. As someone who really enjoys the stat side of basketball, I love coming across new stats like this (even if in this case to me this doesn't seem to be all that useful), so I'd ecourage you to continue data mining to come up with something new and useful.
> 
> btw I'm in the Lebron camp, so take this as objective feedback rather than painting me with the yellow and purple paint brush.


Defensive? Hardly. I'm all for someone giving critical feedback. Its not feedback when people don't even bother to read the article or purposefully misinterpret what you say. The three responses I got were "This is stupid" or some other baseless insult with almost no qualification. Kobe plays in the triangle which reduces his assist production, which has no affect on my stat as each number is relative to only Kobe and no one else, and that Smuch Parker Kwame Brown sucked so much they pulled Kobe down, which has nothing to do with my stat either as their suckage does not really count. Or Kflo's demand that my stat show wheter Kobe 'played well' when no stat actually indicates this in and of itself.

Then those arguments or some variation was repeated over and over no matter how many times I was like "actually, that's not what I stated at all."

Anyway, is my stat useful? I think it is. Its more of a trending stat then a cumlitive number. Its not a number that you can say "see, Bron has 25 for indiestats then Wade, so he's better at that." Rather it reflects a side of a player's game. When they get it going, really going, do they forget their teammates or share the love to make a better team? It gives some perspective on big scorers. If a guy is scoring 30 PPG but you can see a trend of them keeping the ball to score bigger points at the expense of the rest of their team game, I think it shows an inability to incorporate your scoring talent within the a team concept so it improves all, not just your output.

Its a maturity thing I think. MJ had this problem before... earlier in his career especially, and my its reflected both from just watching him play and in my stat. Bron/Wade are known as mature team players AND scorers from the get go who can score and create almost effortlessly. You just get that feeling from watching them. And then when you look at my stat you see that they actually assist more when having big scoring nights. Kobe and Iverson have been known as selfish players in their careers and that's also reflected. Dominique was never known as much of a passer, but I can't recall people saying he played selfishly like the other two. Again, it is just a stat, but rather then state all the things its does not say I think it does reflect a metric that is meaningful. And by no means can it not be improved either. I do think the method of measuring categories against each other tells us 'much' more about a player's game and how they execute on the floor then only looking at a few yearly per game averages.

Other uses... if I had the resources and mostly access to information, could be quite powerful indeed. You could mine the data for first quarter or first half indicators of 'Kobe mode' coming or 'any player mode', it does not have to be Kobe mode. If you could classify each player into say, he plays 6 general types of games. High scoring, low passing, whichever and be able to tell that by the half, you could strategize very effectively. Per game stats are just uber limited at telling you much besides general production over a season. Hmm... I dunno if any of this is still making sense, but get back to me. You're the 'first' person who's actually tried to talk about these things. Its quite appreciated. I'd almost given up on here.


----------



## kflo

where do you get that '07 to '08 was the same group? and the only change was kobe taking less shots? he took 1 less shot per 36, and defensively the team got much better. his shots this year actually went up from '07 levels. getting rid of some of their dead defensive weight certainly helped. apparently alot. it doesn't seem to be something you choose to focus on. fact is, kobe's teams have always played well offensively. they've made marginal improvements offensively, dramatic improvements defensively.

2nd, you focus so much of your analysis on 10 games. 10 games he almost exclusively played great in. your stat shows negative trends for those games, proof of his selfishness. but the fact is he generally played great. and that's less than 2% of his peak games played. fact is, in the 78 games he scored 40-50 points, his apg was 4.2 apg. it gets lower as you go higher (18 total games - 3.6 apg scoring 51+). his rebounding is slightly higher (6.2). 

kobe's efficiency is significantly higher in his high scoring games. it sometimes IS in the interest of the team to ride him when he gets going. you can't seem to entertain this as a possibility. does he occassionally play in a way that hurts his team? of course. but your analysis doesn't help us answer this question. kobe has significantly more games with high output. it makes the comparisons at the high points less meaningful. you have 8 55+ games from kobe and you're comparing it to guys with 1. 

if you were correlating scoring with team success you'd have a better argument. but you're arguing that the team suffers with the high output, or that his overall game suffers, and the results don't bear that out. 

if we were comparing kobe to peers who were routinely putting up 50/10/10 then you might be in a position to say hey those guys are better. but we're looking at a tiny subset here, and trying to make assessments of motive (selfish!) and impact (detriment of the team!). 

dallas, toronto, ny, all games you've labeled kobe selfish and playing to the detriment of the team. yet the only evidence you have is that his assists were low. period.


----------



## Bon]{eRz

If you want to see how a player's assists change with his scoring, why not just do a simple regression analysis of points vs assists? Why choose an arbitrary 40+ points mark, and decrease your sample size and the reliablity of your results?

With a smaller sample size, you come across problems such as the player's team mates level of play in those games - was it consistent with their form in all their other games which you're excluding from your analysis. For eg, if you look at Kobe's 10 highest scoring games (vs Tor, Por, Dal, NYK, Mem, Cha, Mem, Was, Mem, Hou), the rest of his team on average shot 42.01% from the field. This is compared to the Laker's average fg% for the decade (99/00-08/09) of 45.96% as a team. If his team mates shot their average percentage, or had a swing in the other direction of 3.95% better than average (which in a small sample size had just as likely a chance of occuring, unless you assume Kobe's points total is not independent of the rest of his team's fg% [very possible]), a portion of those extra fg's would've come off Kobe assists, and you would come to different results and conclusions with your analysis. But Kobe's style of play would've had nothing to do with it.

Rather than premeditatively going out to score a bunch of points against "poor" teams, could the poor shooting from the rest of his team in those games be the reason he decided to take on the scoring load? Doesn't every coach go to their hottest player(s) during the game? 

Is it possible to flip your conclusion on its head and say that Lebron, Wade and Nique have had high point totals in games where their teams didn't even need them to score as the rest of the team may have been shooting well (reflected in the player's higher assist totals), and therefore its these players who have been the actual stat padders. Where as Kobe and Jordan while being able to score at will only do so when the rest of their team is playing poorly?

You stated in your article that you expected the results to show a drop in a assists for all players as their scoring increases. So the surprise isn't that this actually was the case for Kobe (and Jordan), but rather that it didn't for Wade, Lebron and Nique. Why didn't you write your article from that POV instead of as a knock on Kobe?


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> where do you get that '07 to '08 was the same group? and the only change was kobe taking less shots? he took 1 less shot per 36, and defensively the team got much better.
> 
> his shots this year actually went up from '07 levels. getting rid of some of their dead defensive weight certainly helped. apparently alot. it doesn't seem to be something you choose to focus on. fact is, kobe's teams have always played well offensively. they've made marginal improvements offensively, dramatic improvements defensively.


Uh, cuz it was almost all the same players from the year before? Effort == defense. LA gave a damn when they played and I'm saying it's because their star player started to give a damn too after realizing getting traded actually worsened his situation.



> 2nd, you focus so much of your analysis on 10 games. 10 games he almost exclusively played great in. your stat shows negative trends for those games, proof of his selfishness. but the fact is he generally played great. and that's less than 2% of his peak games played. fact is, in the 78 games he scored 40-50 points, his apg was 4.2 apg. it gets lower as you go higher (18 total games - 3.6 apg scoring 51+). his rebounding is slightly higher (6.2).


Hmm... I disagree he 'played well' in those games. Playing selfishly is never playing well to me. Sure, sometimes its great but what about Odom, how does he respond with being blamed for the losses and Kobe always getting the credit for wins? Or a guy like Parker. They're playing tough teams and then finally he gets a break vs some crap team and is like "great, I can get mine" but he can't get his cuz Kobe is going to try for 50 or 60. Jordan did the same things back in the day and didn't win much of anything till he found the right balance of trust and take over.



> kobe's efficiency is significantly higher in his high scoring games. it sometimes IS in the interest of the team to ride him when he gets going. you can't seem to entertain this as a possibility. does he occassionally play in a way that hurts his team? of course. but your analysis doesn't help us answer this question. kobe has significantly more games with high output. it makes the comparisons at the high points less meaningful. you have 8 55+ games from kobe and you're comparing it to guys with 1.


I'm not comparing it to guys with 1, at all. I point out the sample size is very low and give you the grain of salt to take with it directly. I 'astrick' those guys for you and it supports the analysis that like Kobe, guys like Wade and Bron could have these 55+ games too, but it would take sacrificing their passing, and unlike kobe thy choose to keep passing. Thats what the higher assists at lower scoring games means. Fewer games at high output reduces the confidence of the numbers but not their meaningfulness at all.

Kobe does not have significantly more games then Jordan. My analysis does answer that question. It addresses average play at increasing scoring. If it was only occasionally Kobe sacrificed his passing for points, that wouldn't be a problem. Everyone does it from time to time. Kobe does it enough that there's a regular trend present in his numbers. Take scoring average. You can say "everyone has a 15 or 20 point game occasionally." If its truly only here and there, then their scoring average would be up around 30 or which ever number. But if their scoring average is like, 22, its a whole hell of a lot more then occasionally.

What you've got to consider, and this is one reason why I made this stat, is the true power and meaning of an average number. People say "Oh, his dimes only dropped 1.5" and think of it as getting only 1.5 dimes less in a game. So 8.5 instead of 10, no big deal. But averages don't work that way. A 1.5 dime drop is a massive drop in production. In 05, Kobe had 12 games with >10 assists. In 06, only a 1.5 dime drop on average, he only had 2 such games. Last year Lebron had 7.2 dimes, only 1.2 more then Kobe's peak and only 2.3 more then in 06. But on the season he had 19 +10 dime nights. Almost 10 times Kobe's 06 number and approaching twice his peak year number. People are like "Whatever, Lebron only has a couple assists/boards, whats the big deal?" But it is a big deal. Over the past four seasons Kobe has 2 triple doubles to Lebron's 20. For Kobe to even pass him in that number you have to go to 7/7/7 games. Kobe has 34 of those for 8.5 a season. Lebron's 7/7/7 games though are a wopping 105. Over 3 times as many. And that's all simply from about 1 or 2 points difference in the seasonal average stats.

So there's the question. You're playing with one of 'the' most talented players in the league. But in an entire season he only manages 10 assists once. How does that make you, someone who's spent their entire lives playing ball to become one of the absolute best players in the world, feel when all that work has resulted in you taking 1 shot per quarter in 35 minutes of play?



> if you were correlating scoring with team success you'd have a better argument. but you're arguing that the team suffers with the high output, or that his overall game suffers, and the results don't bear that out.


I argue that his assists suffer, and they bear that out very well. I don't know how much ball you've played, but a guy who scores by not passing is a hog and pisses everyone on his team off.



> if we were comparing kobe to peers who were routinely putting up 50/10/10 then you might be in a position to say hey those guys are better. but we're looking at a tiny subset here, and trying to make assessments of motive (selfish!) and impact (detriment of the team!).
> 
> dallas, toronto, ny, all games you've labeled kobe selfish and playing to the detriment of the team. yet the only evidence you have is that his assists were low. period.


The 'only' evidence???? ;0 You ask 100 people who don't know the motivation why allen iverson was selfish, and they will all tell you its because he took too many shots, did not pass enough and selfishly focused on his own scoring too much. You act like I'm reinventing the term 'selfish play' to fit Kobe. You're stating the only evidence I have he played selfishly is the two biggest factors people cite when a guy plays selfishly.

I could make more detailing win margin against average for each team with respect to scoring output, but, I'm not your secretary nor do I have the time or resources to go about doing that. Nor would you accept it when it was presented to you. You'd say "yea, but he played well!" because he scored lots of points. Points are a poor indicator of playing well. I don't think 61 points with 3 boards and 0 assists against a crappy team is playing well at all. Its entertaining and flashy but to me hardly as well as a triple double with 40 points. A triple double with even 30-35 points can easily generate the same scoring out put as that 61 point game but people don't whoop about it like its a big deal.


----------



## Luke

Indiefan, where do you rank Kobe on your all time lists, just curious.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Indiefan, where do you rank Kobe on your all time lists, just curious.


Like I said, I don't really make lists. I think they don't make sense. You can say someone is top 20, but easily make a case for way more then 20 people to be on that list. I rank in tiers and I'd put him, all time, in 4'th or 5'th tier depending on what I'm ranking him on. Its pretty elite. Kobe is really, really skilled. In some areas he does things just about as well as you can. Honestly, I think that's part of Kobe's tragic flaw.

He's so good at some things he has a hard time to justify not going to move x. I think Kobe has spent oodles of time in gyms practicing corner fall aways. Dude can get his shot off so easily its no wonder he goes to it. He's smart to develop that too cuz it will extend his career. So yea, his pull up game is pretty fantastic. Do I like it more then Wade's though? Semantics. Kobe's got considerably more range but dominating 2 guards who use their range too much stagnate offenses and are just so much more effective in the paint. Hmm... I also think his post game could be much more effective. Your offense should always come from the inside and work out, and when Kobe does this he's at his most deadly for sure. Once he started driving the lane in game, what, 5? of the Denver series, the game was just over and it became easy for everyone. When you work outside in, like in game 5 of the Houston series, you depend on your shot falling to get going and it creates so much less for your team in the way of fouls and easy opportunities.

I don't really feel that Kobe's ever had a firm grasp of how to balance his attack and maximize his talents. Instead of changing his plan of attack I think his response was just to get better at it and practice even more of those step back fall aways. To his credit, he did, but I still think that way of playing is wrong. Maybe he's learned his lesson. Next season will tell.

Think about this. If Kobe truly wants to change his legacy for the better, and shut up his doubters, he should just set a new goal. Lead the league in assists. That will separate him from Shaq. All he's been since the Daddy left is a better version of the same player who couldn't win without a stacked team. The same player he's always been who wins or loses based on the situation around him. There are plenty of people who feel that way. If Kobe does that and has a team full of happy campers smiling at him as he puts up Lebron numbers the story will drastically change to Kobe, the guy who was haunted by Shaq while/after playing with him and finally overcame him in 09. If Kobe had 10+ dimes a game with a few 50 pointers thrown in to prove he's still got it and wins 65-70 games on a happy team, he starts to leapfrog other players big time. He's easily capable of that, no? Its storybook and 'that' is the achievement that will truly repaint his career in a better light.


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> I could make more detailing win margin against average for each team with respect to scoring output, but, I'm not your secretary nor do I have the time or resources to go about doing that. Nor would you accept it when it was presented to you. You'd say "yea, but he played well!" because he scored lots of points. Points are a poor indicator of playing well. I don't think 61 points with 3 boards and *0 assists* against a crappy team is playing well at all. Its entertaining and flashy but to me hardly as well as a triple double with 40 points. A triple double with even 30-35 points can easily generate the same scoring out put as that 61 point game but people don't whoop about it like its a big deal.



How many times are you going to have this typo? 


Also, I would like to get your definition of what a "pull up game" is.


----------



## kflo

do you realize how silly you look when you reference assists in '05 vs other years? in '05 he had the ball in his hands all the time and was asked to do everything offensively. he turned the ball over significantly more as a result as well. his assists were in part a function of his role in the offense. 

and making individual goals based on statistics (lead league in assists) is by definition selfish. the team just won the title, and you want kobe (and the lakers) to dramatically change his game to fit your definition of great. kobe does what he feels, and what phil feels, is necessary to win the game. kobe leading the league in assists is meaningless if they're not as good a team. jordan was arguably at his most effective when his assists were lower. and his team was the best when his assists were in the 4's. 

against the mavs, kobe scored 62 points in 3 quarters with a ts% of 74%. the team ts% was 60%. those are the types of numbers that result in wins. that may bother you, but that's the truth. some artificial threshold on assists is meaningless. the overall efficiency of the offense is what matters. you can't seem to see this. or don't seem to care, because you have your own point to try and make. 

you sound like the bitter kid who didn't like when better players got more shot attempts. it's the way it is, and you better find a way to contribute. the ball hog is the kid who isn't better yet takes more shots. the super star is the guy the coach wants taking the lions share of the shots and the other guys to support in little ways. and if you can't buy into that, buy into your role, you get replaced with guys who do. suck it up and play defense, scrub!

and i love the notion that if kobe leads his team to 65-70 wins, leads the league in assists while still scoring alot of points he may start to leapfrog some people! he'll start leapfrogging all the others who have done similar things!

allen iverson would have been viewed as alot less selfish if he scored more efficiently. kobe bryant scores alot more efficiently than allen iverson. and he generally scored alot more efficiently in his high output games. not that you care about such things. 

and again, kobe has always gave a damn, and always played hard. 

they didn't have smush, bynum was significantly improved to start the '08 season, luke's minutes were down, odom was healthy. they collectively improved defensively.


----------



## Luke

Indiefan, since you don't believe in normal rankings, post what your "tiers" please, I think that it would clear a lot of things up.

Oh, and asking Kobe to lead the league in assists just to prove himself is stupid, and it was a detriment to his team. They just won the damn championship and you want them to completley revamp their offense and basically isolate Kobe into the only playmaker on the team?


----------



## kflo

if player A does make a conscious decision to score more depending on how "hot" they were, or depending on a perceived mismatch they have, and in turn score more, and more efficiently, resulting in better overall team offense and success, but they also pass less, how on earth can anyone automatically decide that that is inherently detrimental to the team?


----------



## Jakain

I don't know if its been mentioned already or how it really deals with this discussion but wasn't Kobe Bryant the leader in assists of the past Finals? There wasn't a Magic or Laker that averaged more assists than he did IIRC.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Jakain said:


> I don't know if its been mentioned already or how it really deals with this discussion but wasn't Kobe Bryant the leader in assists of the past Finals? There wasn't a Magic or Laker that averaged more assists than he did IIRC.


Only one of those games was a 40 point game though!


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> Indiefan, since you don't believe in normal rankings, post what your "tiers" please, I think that it would clear a lot of things up.


Uh, I already did this. Just go up the thread. What do you think it would clear up? Hmm... however it really depends on what we are going to rank on. Tell you what, you tell me what you want me to rank on, and I'll give you the list. If its contributions to winning, Kobe's not going to be ranked overly high. I don't like the win share stat, but its significant, and it will back that up.



> Oh, and asking Kobe to lead the league in assists just to prove himself is stupid, and it was a detriment to his team. They just won the damn championship and you want them to completley revamp their offense and basically isolate Kobe into the only playmaker on the team?


Well, I don't know Kobe to ask him, nor would I, nor have I 'demanded it'. I'm just stating something Kobe could do that would really change his selfish perceptions or the Shaq affiliations. And they'd hardly have to change their offense. Kobe won getting plenty of assists. He still missed lots of jacked shots for stretches and padded the first game to get 40 points and then the 3's in game 3/4. The team totally came together in the last two games of the Denver series when Kobe started to drive the hole and facilitate the offense. I don't think it would be a challenge for a guy like Kobe. Did you see how easily he killed Denver? In that game Kobe had 35 points, 10 dimes, 20 shots, 4 3's, and shot 60% from the field. Denver could not play on his level and crumpled in knowing it, at home. The game could have been different. He could have 4 dimes, 30 shots, 9 3's, shoot 45% from the field, his teammates aren't involved enough to really be in rhythm and they win or lose the game based on if he goes 3/9 or 6/9 from behind the arc. He'll get 50-60 points (as foul's missed don't count as shots) but his team won't dominate and they won't annihilate Denver and shut them down.

I don't think its much of a stretch that the game he did play can be replicated often to great success. It was Kobe's best game of the playoffs and the same could be said for his team. They won the championship playing 'this' way, specifically. Before that, they were getting taken to game 7's by a 25 million roster without their two best players and looking in trouble vs Denver.


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> How many times are you going to have this typo?
> 
> 
> Also, I would like to get your definition of what a "pull up game" is.


Heh, I did it once and referenced it. Its a board post, not a thesis dissertation, its minor and does not alter the point, so lighten up.

Pull up game? Well, you want me to define what a pull up jumper is? Do you have a real question?


----------



## indiefan23

Jakain said:


> I don't know if its been mentioned already or how it really deals with this discussion but wasn't Kobe Bryant the leader in assists of the past Finals? There wasn't a Magic or Laker that averaged more assists than he did IIRC.


Yep, from game 5 on (with a small lapse in game 3/4 in the finals) Kobe played pretty great. He almost looked bored destroying Denver in the fourth in game 5. He only scored 22 points, but that Kobe is way more unstoppable IMHO.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> if player A does make a conscious decision to score more depending on how "hot" they were, or depending on a perceived mismatch they have, and in turn score more, and more efficiently, resulting in better overall team offense and success, but they also pass less, how on earth can anyone automatically decide that that is inherently detrimental to the team?


Because its predictable and the defense prepares for it. Its not a secret, Kobe trying to take all the shots is 'exactly' what other teams want Kobe to do. Kobe taking 10 3's is a stellar night for Shane Battier. Getting hot and falling for the ruse is not good basketball because it reduces the outcome of winning when you trade those shots for drives to the hole which cause 'so' much more dynamic offenses. 'making a move' vs a set defense or a double team and trying to score from 20 feet is never as good as making that move and passing for a layup or wide open shot for a shooter vs a defense that has collapsed. How many shots did Kobe jack from outside vs boston last year and houston this year? Plenty more then he should have. He may have learned though.


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> He's so good at some things he has a hard time to justify not going to move x. I think Kobe has spent oodles of time in gyms practicing corner fall aways. Dude can get his shot off so easily its no wonder he goes to it. He's smart to develop that too cuz it will extend his career. So yea, his pull up game is pretty fantastic. Do I like it more then Wade's though? Semantics. Kobe's got considerably more range but dominating 2 guards who use their range too much stagnate offenses and are just so much more effective in the paint. Hmm... I also think his post game could be much more effective.


You go from talking about his baseline fade-away to his pull-up game, two completely different things, though it sounds like you think that they are the same. You then proceed to question if you like it more than Wade's? What exactly is the reasoning for that? It can't be basketball related, because Kobe's pull-up game is complete, Wade's isn't. 



> Your offense should always come from the inside and work out, and when Kobe does this he's at his most deadly for sure. Once he started driving the lane in game, what, 5? of the Denver series, the game was just over and it became easy for everyone. When you work outside in, like in game 5 of the Houston series, you depend on your shot falling to get going and it creates so much less for your team in the way of fouls and easy opportunities.


It's nice that you think so highly of the inside/out philosophy of basketball, but that is not always possible against NBA defenses and the shot clock. You have to be able to space the floor. If everyone is sagging into gaps and playing off questionable shooters, it is more difficult to post and penetrate. 



> I don't really feel that Kobe's ever had a firm grasp of how to balance his attack and maximize his talents. Instead of changing his plan of attack I think his response was just to get better at it and practice even more of those step back fall aways.


Kobe doesn't shoot very many “step back fall aways” but I assume you mean fade-aways, and that is a small part of his game. Either that, or you have mistaken Kobe for LeBron. 



> Think about this. If Kobe truly wants to change his legacy for the better, and shut up his doubters, he should just set a new goal. Lead the league in assists. That will separate him from Shaq. All he's been since the Daddy left is a better version of the same player who couldn't win without a stacked team. The same player he's always been who wins or loses based on the situation around him. There are plenty of people who feel that way. If Kobe does that and has a team full of happy campers smiling at him as he puts up Lebron numbers the story will drastically change to Kobe, the guy who was haunted by Shaq while/after playing with him and finally overcame him in 09.


Anyone who leads the NBA in assists is going to be involved in a ton of pick-and-rolls all game long or running a run-and-gun system. As you probably know, the Lakers use a triple post offense. Not the best offense for individual assist numbers. But all of this is irrelevant, as he doesn't have to silence his doubters. And you're not really talking about the average doubter here anyway, are you? You're talking more about the doubter who had a recent lobotomy. Really a small, small group of basketball followers. 



> The same player he's always been who wins or loses based on the situation around him


Breaking news, brace yourself... That is the case for all players. They win or lose based on the situation around them. 



> If Kobe had 10+ dimes a game with a few 50 pointers thrown in to prove he's still got it and wins 65-70 games on a happy team, he starts to leapfrog other players big time. He's easily capable of that, no? Its storybook and 'that' is the achievement that will truly repaint his career in a better light.


So, let me get this right. You want a “shooting guard” who is historically great at scoring the basketball to drastically alter his game to manufacture more of a certain statistic, which would include changing his team's offense, just to solidify his place in the minds of a large group of uneducated basketball followers?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Because its predictable and the defense prepares for it. Its not a secret, Kobe trying to take all the shots is 'exactly' what other teams want Kobe to do. Kobe taking 10 3's is a stellar night for Shane Battier. Getting hot and falling for the ruse is not good basketball because it reduces the outcome of winning when you trade those shots for drives to the hole which cause 'so' much more dynamic offenses. 'making a move' vs a set defense or a double team and trying to score from 20 feet is never as good as making that move and passing for a layup or wide open shot for a shooter vs a defense that has collapsed. How many shots did Kobe jack from outside vs boston last year and houston this year? Plenty more then he should have. He may have learned though.


in the games covered by your "stat", it didn't reduce the outcome of winning. he did score more efficiently, the team produced results, and they won at a high rate. 

again, you have your own opinion of what you value in basketball. but i'll quote my scenario again:



> if player A does make a conscious decision to score more depending on how "hot" they were, or depending on a perceived mismatch they have, and in turn score more, and more efficiently, resulting in better overall team offense and success, but they also pass less, how on earth can anyone automatically decide that that is inherently detrimental to the team?


instead of talking specifically about kobe, address player A. if player A scores more, more efficiently, resulting in better overall team offense, but lower assists, how can that automatically be bad? this is what you want to conclude from your "stat". score more, lower assists, bad. regardless of the actual efficiency of the player or the team. 

sounds like you believe kobe could be the best player ever if he just played like you want him to, and he falls short, so instead of judging the player he actually is, you judge him in relation to the player you think he should be. if he could only lead the league in assists, score 25+ ppg, and lead his team to 70 wins, he'd prove he's great.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> do you realize how silly you look when you reference assists in '05 vs other years? in '05 he had the ball in his hands all the time and was asked to do everything offensively. he turned the ball over significantly more as a result as well. his assists were in part a function of his role in the offense.


Menh, I'm not 'silly'. You can talk 'role in the offense' and 'what he was asked to do' and 'hockey assists' and 'the triangle' all you want. They're excuses and spin. Every player has those same factors affecting them. Nothing affectes how Kobe plays more then Kobe himself. When he spends 10 shots running the ball up court to take a 20 footer or dribbles for half the clock outside the arc to shoot a 3, that's Kobe, not his team's offense or what Phil is asking him to do. Part of that was his role, but most of it was still Kobe who's dimes in this stat go down because he so routinely does not use the offense. And if it's his 'role' that is the demon that forced him to go for 35 ppg and only get 10 dimes twice in a whole season, then its a total knock to his versatility, which is in part my point. He has trouble making an impact without scoring, and when he does score it distracts the effectiveness of the rest of the game.



> and making individual goals based on statistics (lead league in assists) is by definition selfish. the team just won the title, and you want kobe (and the lakers) to dramatically change his game to fit your definition of great. kobe does what he feels, and what phil feels, is necessary to win the game. kobe leading the league in assists is meaningless if they're not as good a team. jordan was arguably at his most effective when his assists were lower. and his team was the best when his assists were in the 4's.


Menh again. Kobe changed to the what I'm saying in the Denver series to win his title. His team is dramatically better when he plays team ball. I don't get how you're saying that increasing his 'passing' could actually be seen as selfish. Even if it was for an individual goal, how could you possibly say that without cedeing increasing his scoring average and attempts by like, 7 each as unselfish? Cuz that's what his team and coach asked of him? BS. He made an individual goal based on stats, just like you said was by definition selfish.

Hmm... Jordan's 'team' was best when his dimes were in the 4's. Jordan was never as effective as during his pure prime in the early 90's and he was getting 5-6 dimes a game. And Kobe is in no way the scorer or mental competitor Jordan is which means he should be passing more. Kobe scores because he wanted to be Jordan (which I think he's gotten over). Jordan was Jordan. One last thing about Jordan's game. MJ's forced shots came in the paint. It makes a huge difference compared with a perimeter shot. Good defense's goals are to make you take outside shots. Honestly, if you want to win a player debate, comparing them to Jordan is never going to help your case because it can only result in that player's flaws being exposed even more.



> against the mavs, kobe scored 62 points in 3 quarters with a ts% of 74%. the team ts% was 60%. those are the types of numbers that result in wins. that may bother you, but that's the truth. some artificial threshold on assists is meaningless. the overall efficiency of the offense is what matters. you can't seem to see this. or don't seem to care, because you have your own point to try and make. Jordan's peak was absolutely in the first 3-peat when he won with a much weaker team vs stronger competition and defenses.


Hmm... my threshold is anything but artificial. Its what took place in every game Kobe played and not more artificial then a scoring average.

Again, you have to learn the difference between efficiency and shooting percentage. When you say 'efficient' its a misnomer because TS% does not eqate to offensive efficiency which is points scored per 100 possessions. Not that LA's efficiency was overly horrible that season, but theres a big difference between being an efficient shooter and an efficient offensive player/team.

The other thing I don't like about TS%, people think it replaces FG%. It does not. Its only a reflection of FT shooting and 3's. If you're TS% is much higher then your FG% I think it points to a problem. You're taking abundantly more difficult shots to get all those extra points.



> you sound like the bitter kid who didn't like when better players got more shot attempts. it's the way it is, and you better find a way to contribute. the ball hog is the kid who isn't better yet takes more shots. the super star is the guy the coach wants taking the lions share of the shots and the other guys to support in little ways. and if you can't buy into that, buy into your role, you get replaced with guys who do. suck it up and play defense, scrub!


Menh. I got my touches. Players who think they're bigger then the team are always cancers. I played on a good team, hence we didn't have those guys. We enjoyed beating up on them and watching them sulk after losses.



> and i love the notion that if kobe leads his team to 65-70 wins, leads the league in assists while still scoring alot of points he may start to leapfrog some people! he'll start leapfrogging all the others who have done similar things!
> 
> allen iverson would have been viewed as alot less selfish if he scored more efficiently. kobe bryant scores alot more efficiently than allen iverson. and he generally scored alot more efficiently in his high output games. not that you care about such things.
> and again, kobe has always gave a damn, and always played hard.


Hmm... what about when Kobe shot his team out of the finals against inferior competition shooting 18% from 3? Then when everyone said "WTF are you doing? You're blowing our chance at another ring!" he just 'stopped' shooting to prove a point. Kobe has always given a damn about himself. Which is why I'm just telling you what will change that perception.

And AI? Why, cuz Kobe's low career TS% of .558 is so much better then .519? Want to know what the difference is? Kobe is a better free throw shooter then AI at 84% instead of 78%. So you think AI is selfish and Kobe is not based on Kobe hitting a few free throws. Love it. To AI's credit, his teammates love him and he is the example giving it all every game. To AI's determent, he grew up a poor ghetto kid and wasn't smart or mature enough to get the intricies of what being a leader is. Once he did learn it his team was slowly destroyed by one of the worst GM jobs this side of the clippers.

How again is it you think selfishness is determined by scoring and free throw shooting anyway? And again, how on earth do you claim TS% is a measure of scoring efficiency when Steve Kerr is 24'th all time and Kobe is 114? Is Cedric Maxwell the most efficient scorer ever?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

I think the only reason you like to talk about TS% is because for his career Kobe's is higher then MJ's but that's really totally irrelevant to my stat at all. The only reason is cuz Jordan didn't take lots of 3's which is actually better for a team's offense. Andd irrelevant anyway because Cedric Maxwell is the most efficient scorer of all time and we should be comparing Kobe to him, right? 



> they didn't have smush, bynum was significantly improved to start the '08 season, luke's minutes were down, odom was healthy. they collectively improved defensively.


Yea, and Kobe realized that like it or leave it he was stuck in LA and another crap season would destroy his reputation and image so he stopped inflating his stats and his average increased. You don't go from crap to elite because of the things you listed. As if Smush, a project player, was responsible for holding Kobe back at the guard position. Or Kwame shooting 59% killed their chances when Kwame was actually decent defensively. The problem with the previous teams was attitude and effort. They didn't bring it and were not motivated. They didn't play together. Usually you blame the coach except Phil is basically the best coach ever and is nearly beyond reproach. So I'm laying a big chunk of that blame at Kobe's feet. You know Wade's crappy team? Bron's crappy teams? Jordan's crappy teams? They all brought it and it took them places. If they lost games it was because they were out talented, not because no one seemed to get along with each other on the court. You can keep listing evidence of Kobe's skill and it really doesn't matter.

Kobe had talent on his teams. Kobe had the best player of his generation on his team and he wasn't happy with him there. So they got rid of the best player of his generation and the team still was not happy. His teams didn't always try and I blame him for it.

This is really where I fault you ya know... you say I'm bias but I go out of my way to accept points about Kobe's greatness. He's a great player and I'm not going to change or attempt to change that. He's a fantastic scorer. But you just rail against any negative assessment of him at all. Then you call me bias when I bring up both good and bad except you're stating Kobe's not selfish because in a game where he hogged all the shots his team couldn't find their rhythm. Well duh, it takes shots to make shots. Did Kobe find his rhythm? Yes, he did. Did his team? No, they did not. And that's 'exactly' what I am talking about. You're actually repeating my points. When the other players I analysed play well, their teams actually tend to play better and their dimes increase as a result. But you refuse to accept it even though you keep alluding to the same things I'm saying. Why? Because Kobe is selfish. He demotivates his teammates if every coach, analyst and game I've watched are correct about volume shooters. Even if what I'm saying is harsh, or even unfairly harsh, its still true, and you for some reason have trouble dealing with that fact.


----------



## kflo

i don't think you really understand. if there are no turnovers or offensive rebounds, team ts% IS team offensive efficiency. you seem confused on this point. ts% is generally the most important measure of overall team efficiency.


----------



## kflo

if you shoot 20 times (not 20 fga's, but 20 attempts that either result in a fga or fta's) and score 25 points, that is scoring more efficiently than shooting 20 times and scoring 20 points. it doesn't matter if the first guy shot 40% fg% and the 2nd guy 50%. the fact is the 1st guy was more efficient scoring. that's what ts% is measuring. it's basic.


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> You go from talking about his baseline fade-away to his pull-up game, two completely different things


Umm... not its not. I said Kobe could score on the move. I didn't even use th word baseline. ;0



> , though it sounds like you think that they are the same. You then proceed to question if you like it more than Wade's? What exactly is the reasoning for that? It can't be basketball related, because Kobe's pull-up game is complete, Wade's isn't.


I like Wade's mid-range game more. He's more explosive and much more of a threat of going to the hole. Kobe will spend quarters not even trying to score in the paint and settles for too many 3's. I don't like it. Wade doesn't settle for jumpers nearly as much. I do like that.



> It's nice that you think so highly of the inside/out philosophy of basketball, but that is not always possible against NBA defenses and the shot clock. You have to be able to space the floor. If everyone is sagging into gaps and playing off questionable shooters, it is more difficult to post and penetrate.
> 
> Kobe doesn't shoot very many “step back fall aways” but I assume you mean fade-aways, and that is a small part of his game. Either that, or you have mistaken Kobe for LeBron.


Heh, I can't even compliment Kobe without you hating on me? ;0 The first thing you said is an excuse, plain and simple. Like, how old are you to not know that 'fade away' and 'fall away' are both accepted terms? Kobe uses motion to get space on almost all his contested shots. He's just become incredible at creating that extra inch or two. And for the record, its possible to fade off a pull up, which Kobe does all the time. The dude has skillz man. I'm just giving him credit where it's due. Heres a little mix of your main main stepping back and 'falling' away, which he does all the freaking time. I will grant you that he's so good at it and its so fluid that it sometimes just looks like a normal jumper. He fades on almost every contested J. Its just natural now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-l8_Knvb2g



> Anyone who leads the NBA in assists is going to be involved in a ton of pick-and-rolls all game long or running a run-and-gun system. As you probably know, the Lakers use a triple post offense. Not the best offense for individual assist numbers. But all of this is irrelevant, as he doesn't have to silence his doubters. And you're not really talking about the average doubter here anyway, are you?


Umm... no, I can guarantee you that every person who's not a fan of Kobe thinks he's selfish. Its near 100%. Its his fault. Yes, they play in the 'triple post offense' (but I assume you mean triangle. wink  ) but I'm not sure if it really hurts assists. It will kill a point guard's assists. Jordan playing in the triangle vs more traditional offenses had .2 fewer assists.



> Breaking news, brace yourself... That is the case for all players. They win or lose based on the situation around them.


Losers lose based on the situation around them. Winners take lemons (like Bill Cartwright, Stacey King and Scott Williams) and turn it into winning. Winners take non-talent guys like Jarren Jackson and use them as weapons to win rings. Winners take a guy they are stuck with who's not an NBA caliber player anymore who's playing out his contract, like Eric Snow, and get to the finals. Winners are not only happy with their team when they're on top of the league. Winners don't blame their less talented teammates for losing and demanding trades. You want a winner? Here's a winner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef-f7EeDpYI

KG says team about 50 times in that interview. He blames no one, at all, besides himself. That's why Brian Scalanbrine, who absolutely, totally, 100% horrible, gave them quality minutes in the playoffs when KG was out. Its why Big Baby was hitting game winners. It was about the team. KG had confidence in his team, and they had confidence in themselves because of it. Note, KG says "I'm losing" three times before he says "we're losing." and then breaks down crying. I think you need to hear from a winner on winning. Cuz it starts with losing. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef-f7EeDpYI



> So, let me get this right. You want a “shooting guard” who is historically great at scoring the basketball to drastically alter his game to manufacture more of a certain statistic, which would include changing his team's offense, just to solidify his place in the minds of a large group of uneducated basketball followers?


Well, seeing as Kobe did do that and won a ring, I don't think its much of a change and maybe you want him to do it too. I'm just telling you whats going to change his perceptions. When he has big games, the non-scoring aspects of his game tend to suffer. That has nothing to do with the triangle at all. Its why he gets knocked and its not good for winning, no matter which excuses you have. I'm just telling you what has to change for that perception to change. He won passing more and already has gotten way more slack all over. Imagine if he kept it up for a season.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i don't think you really understand. if there are no turnovers or offensive rebounds, team ts% IS team offensive efficiency. you seem confused on this point. ts% is generally the most important measure of overall team efficiency.


Okay, kflo, you are wrong. You are not right. You are incorrect. No, that's actually not an affirmative. You are mistaken. There is a correlation, okay, because good teams will tend to shoot well and bad one's won't, but its not the same thing.

Here is some stats. Look at them.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats?sort=offeff&seasonType=2&league=nba

Portland is 8'th in TS%. But the second most efficient offensive team. Their 55.3% is worse then the 9'th most efficient team. Their offensive efficiency is .5 off of 1'rst Phoenix while their TS% is 3.1% less. Their OE is 8.1 more then 24'th Sacramento, but their TS% is only 1.1% more then the Kings. Sure, they are linked because good shooting helps you generate offense, but they are NOT the same thing, at all. Or in any way, shape or form. They do not mean the same thing. Are we clear on this now?


----------



## kflo

i explained what the other factors were. if everyone had the same offensive rebound and turnover rates, the team with the highest ts% would have the highest offensive efficiency. again, if a team had no turnovers or off rebounds, ts% would BE offensive efficiency. it directly measures efficiency. basics.


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> Umm... not its not. I said Kobe could score on the move. I didn't even use th word baseline. ;0


You said corner fall away which is a baseline fall away. Same thing. 



> I like Wade's mid-range game more. He's more explosive and much more of a threat of going to the hole. Kobe will spend quarters not even trying to score in the paint and settles for too many 3's. I don't like it. Wade doesn't settle for jumpers nearly as much. I do like that.


So why did you not state that then? A mid-range game is completely different than a pull-up game. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on basketball terminology. Kobe has the best mid-range game in the league. Wade is better at attacking the hoop largely because of superior athleticism. Don't confuse that with a mid-range game. 




> Heh, I can't even compliment Kobe without you hating on me? ;0 The first thing you said is an excuse, plain and simple. Like, how old are you to not know that 'fade away' and 'fall away' are both accepted terms? Kobe uses motion to get space on almost all his contested shots. He's just become incredible at creating that extra inch or two.


It's not an excuse. That is how things actually work. Everyone knows fade-away and fall-away jumpers are the same thing. You said “step back fall away” and a step-back, believe it or not, is where you push off one foot to move yourself away from the hoop. Thus, “step back fall way” is two distinct, difficult movements. Stepping back and then falling away. 



> And for the record, its possible to fade off a pull up, which Kobe does all the time. The dude has skillz man. I'm just giving him credit where it's due. Heres a little mix of your main main stepping back and 'falling' away, which he does all the freaking time. I will grant you that he's so good at it and its so fluid that it sometimes just looks like a normal jumper. He fades on almost every contested J.


For the record, no. It's called pulling up because you are going forward with your momentum, and you stop and rise up. I don't think I have ever seen someone going forward pull up and fade away from the hoop. Probably have seen it, but I don't remember. Kobe does not do it all the time. That is a very unnatural movement. Sorry. 



> Umm... no, I can guarantee you that every person who's not a fan of Kobe thinks he's selfish. Its near 100%. Its his fault.


That is the dumbest thing you have said so far. Congratulations.



> Yes, they play in the 'triple post offense' (but I assume you mean triangle. wink  ) but I'm not sure if it really hurts assists. It will kill a point guard's assists. Jordan playing in the triangle vs more traditional offenses had .2 fewer assists.


I should have used the more recent/popular name for the offense with you. My bad. You can grasp that they play through the post, right? Well, nobody playing in an equal opportunity offense that runs through post players is going to lead the league in assists. Your whole idea of him needing to do that to justify himself is just preposterous anyway. 




> Losers lose based on the situation around them. Winners take lemons (like Bill Cartwright, Stacey King and Scott Williams) and turn it into winning. Winners take non-talent guys like Jarren Jackson and use them as weapons to win rings. Winners take a guy they are stuck with who's not an NBA caliber player anymore who's playing out his contract, like Eric Snow, and get to the finals. Winners are not only happy with their team when they're on top of the league. Winners don't blame their less talented teammates for losing and demanding trades. You want a winner? Here's a winner.


Your perception is way off. It is not about turning duds into studs. Nobody does that. Players with smaller roles are not dependent on great players so that they can make their contributions to the team. Playing with a great player, in general, simply makes it easier to perform. 



> Well, seeing as Kobe did do that and won a ring, I don't think its much of a change and maybe you want him to do it too. I'm just telling you whats going to change his perceptions. When he has big games, the non-scoring aspects of his game tend to suffer. That has nothing to do with the triangle at all.


Or he could just continue to win championships. Which would mean your perception would be even more limited and asinine than it already is. 



> Its why he gets knocked and its not good for winning, no matter which excuses you have. I'm just telling you what has to change for that perception to change. He won passing more and already has gotten way more slack all over. Imagine if he kept it up for a season.


Every player gets knocked, I think he will be ok. The larger picture disagrees with you. He has championships with two completely different teams.


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> You said corner fall away which is a baseline fall away. Same thing.
> 
> So why did you not state that then? A mid-range game is completely different than a pull-up game. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on basketball terminology. Kobe has the best mid-range game in the league. Wade is better at attacking the hoop largely because of superior athleticism. Don't confuse that with a mid-range game.
> 
> It's not an excuse. That is how things actually work. Everyone knows fade-away and fall-away jumpers are the same thing. You said “step back fall away” and a step-back, believe it or not, is where you push off one foot to move yourself away from the hoop. Thus, “step back fall way” is two distinct, difficult movements. Stepping back and then falling away.
> 
> For the record, no. It's called pulling up because you are going forward with your momentum, and you stop and rise up. I don't think I have ever seen someone going forward pull up and fade away from the hoop. Probably have seen it, but I don't remember. Kobe does not do it all the time. That is a very unnatural movement. Sorry.
> 
> That is the dumbest thing you have said so far. Congratulations.
> 
> I should have used the more recent/popular name for the offense with you. My bad. You can grasp that they play through the post, right? Well, nobody playing in an equal opportunity offense that runs through post players is going to lead the league in assists. Your whole idea of him needing to do that to justify himself is just preposterous anyway.
> 
> Your perception is way off. It is not about turning duds into studs. Nobody does that. Players with smaller roles are not dependent on great players so that they can make their contributions to the team. Playing with a great player, in general, simply makes it easier to perform.
> 
> Or he could just continue to win championships. Which would mean your perception would be even more limited and asinine than it already is.
> 
> Every player gets knocked, I think he will be ok. The larger picture disagrees with you. He has championships with two completely different teams.


Yea, okay, I'm not here for a pissing match. If you want to argue the semantics of a fall away vs a fade away and mid-range game vs pull up game go waste someone else's time. You're entire post is just hate and not even talking about my article or stat, its just a personal attack. Ha, you're even criticizing my compliments of Kobe's game. Nay, nay I say! Yea, go say nay to someone else. You're nor worthy of a Bill Murray avatar. I'm done.


----------



## bballlife

indiefan23 said:


> Yea, okay, I'm not here for a pissing match. If you want to argue the semantics of a fall away vs a fade away and mid-range game vs pull up game, go waste someone else's time. You're entire post is just hate towards me. Ha, you're even criticizing my compliments of Kobe's game. Nay, nay I say! Yea, go say nay to someone else.


Oh no, fall-away vs. fade-away is semantics. Pull-up game vs. mid-range game is not. Two completely different things. And it's not hate. It's simply pointing out the obvious. You can't possibly expect anyone, and I mean anyone, to take you seriously with the approach you have put forth here. Ignore logic, over rely on your dubious, media created perspectives, and then make constant errors, all while showing a poor understanding of basic basketball concepts. You don't seem to know the difference between a dunk and a drop step. Stop wasting keystrokes.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i explained what the other factors were. if everyone had the same offensive rebound and turnover rates, the team with the highest ts% would have the highest offensive efficiency. again, if a team had no turnovers or off rebounds, ts% would BE offensive efficiency. it directly measures efficiency. basics.


If everyone shot the exact same percentage and had the same turnovers then rebound rate would be offensive efficiency. Rebound rate directly measures offensive efficiency. basics.

A valid argument. Just devoid of any truth in reality as those things are not the same and TS% is NOT a measure of scoring efficiency any more then rebound rate or spontaneous full team heart attack rate for that matter. I said "efficiency is inherently linked to production/pace (a time unit of some such), TS% does not factor in pace, TS% is not a measure of efficiency." You responded "Yea, but if everyone played the exact same pace, it would be." What you said 'is' my point because we all know for a fact that your two premises are indeed 'not' true and as you just now, and I about 4-5 times, stated they directly affect scoring efficiency. Its that simple kflo. You just found a different way to say 'pace' and repeated what I said previously. Its not the same thing at all.


----------



## indiefan23

bballlife said:


> Oh no, fall-away vs. fade-away is semantics. Pull-up game vs. mid-range game is not. Two completely different things. And it's not hate. It's simply pointing out the obvious. You can't possibly expect anyone, and I mean anyone, to take you seriously with the approach you have put forth here. Ignore logic, over rely on your dubious, media created perspectives, and then make constant errors, all while showing a poor understanding of basic basketball concepts. You don't seem to know the difference between a dunk and a drop step. Stop wasting keystrokes.


Heh, ok.


----------



## kflo

i can't believe this is so difficult. you really have no idea what you're talking about. there are different components to offensive efficiency. turnover rate is one. off reb % is another. and ts% is another. ts% can be separated between efg% and ft/fga. ts% is scoring efficiency. it has nothing to do with pace. offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. do you understand that? offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. ts% has nothing to do with pace. ts% is a direct component of offensive efficiency. and the only one directly related to scoring the basketball. how efficiently you score (ts%). how you protect your possessions (to %). how you continue your possessions on missed shots (off reb%). that's offensive efficiency. got it yet?


----------



## LionOfJudah

kflo said:


> i can't believe this is so difficult. you really have no idea what you're talking about. there are different components to offensive efficiency. turnover rate is one. off reb % is another. and ts% is another. ts% can be separated between efg% and ft/fga. ts% is scoring efficiency. it has nothing to do with pace. offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. do you understand that? offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. ts% has nothing to do with pace. ts% is a direct component of offensive efficiency. and the only one directly related to scoring the basketball. how efficiently you score (ts%). how you protect your possessions (to %). how you continue your possessions on missed shots (off reb%). that's offensive efficiency. got it yet?


So, let me get this straight... ts% has nothing to do with pace? :bsmile:


----------



## indiefan23

Bon]{eRz said:


> If you want to see how a player's assists change with his scoring, why not just do a simple regression analysis of points vs assists? Why choose an arbitrary 40+ points mark, and decrease your sample size and the reliablity of your results?


Uh, it is a simple regression analysis. I didn't call it that because when you talk 'math' people get scared off and there is not a need to use it when you can explain it in real world terms. Why choose >40 points? Because that's the point at which a game goes from a good scoring night to a great one. You are mistake however. It does not decrease my sample size at all. >40 games 'is' my sample size as it's the data set I'm examining and drawing conclusions about. The samples from that data set are in 5 point scoring quantiles. Again, I could just do a scatter plot and show the trend line, it shows the same thing, but in 5 point intervals it makes it much easier to understand and talk about. In games >50 points player x averaged 4.6 dimes, which is 1.9 dimes below average.



> With a smaller sample size, you come across problems such as the player's team mates level of play in those games - was it consistent with their form in all their other games which you're excluding from your analysis. For eg, if you look at Kobe's 10 highest scoring games (vs Tor, Por, Dal, NYK, Mem, Cha, Mem, Was, Mem, Hou), the rest of his team on average shot 42.01% from the field. This is compared to the Laker's average fg% for the decade (99/00-08/09) of 45.96% as a team. If his team mates shot their average percentage, or had a swing in the other direction of 3.95% better than average (which in a small sample size had just as likely a chance of occuring, unless you assume Kobe's points total is not independent of the rest of his team's fg% [very possible]), a portion of those extra fg's would've come off Kobe assists, and you would come to different results and conclusions with your analysis. But Kobe's style of play would've had nothing to do with it.


Hmm... I do assume that honestly. And sample sizes especially at higher scoring games do get slim, we are only talking about games over 40... even the 15 games (or whichever number) is still a large portion of the dataset. The other real weakness we have is we are comparing Kobe who's at the end of his prime to guys like Jordan who played past their prime. (I would contend Jordan was not prime anymore in 98. He never had to be carried like Pippen did for him in 98. I love Pippen!) You also have to figure the smaller samples for players like Wade/Bron who have only been in hte league for a while. Its not like there is 100% confidence in the results at all and confidence diminishes as you increase the points.

However, that confidence is not as low as you would think especially in determining a trend. Its rational to expect a trend to continue and the fact that the data we do have for say, +55 games does support that trend, the earlier numbers in the trend do lend some confidence (albeit indirect rational sense) in the numbers that follow them as scoring increases.

In comparison to other prolific scorers the delta and the amplitude of Kobe's trend adds confidence via the fact that Kobe's numbers are much, much more striking then anyone else's. His dimes really do drop and continue dropping at a rate not seen in any other players. So if it was just a head to head comparison with say, Wade, yea, you've got a point. Wade's results could just be an anomaly of freak occurrences and statistical noise. But when you add other scorers, even other classical selfish players like Iverson and Jordan (who's dataset is even more solid due to more games), and the rate of change and amplitude of the change is just not seen in other players, it lends much more confidence to the notion that Wade or Iverson are more normal and Kobe's numbers stand out. Also because its not a predictive stat, but more of a measurement stat, reliance on confidence for predictability need not be as stringent. I 'know' exactly what Kobe's production was and that's specifically what I'm doing. Stating what happened... and it 'did' happen that way. Would you use it to bet "Kobe's next 50 point game will have less then 5 assists"? I wouldn't, but I also would not use a 30 point scoring average to bet a player would score 29-31 points either. Would I use my stat to bet "in games scoring more then 50 points, Kobe averaged x assists." Every single time. Predicting the future and chronicling the past to provide perspective on what happened are two very different things.

You still have a point, and its still a very good one, just not as damning as it may appear at first.



> Rather than premeditatively going out to score a bunch of points against "poor" teams, could the poor shooting from the rest of his team in those games be the reason he decided to take on the scoring load? Doesn't every coach go to their hottest player(s) during the game?


Could be, however its kind of contradicted by the many accounts of Kobe stating how many he was going to score before the game and then setting out to do just that. Beyond that, I don't see a rational reason to think the Lakers would play worse vs worse teams. Coaches go to their stars, but I don't know any coaches who think 40 shots from one player is a good idea. I also just plain don't buy it. I've watched Kobe bring the ball up the floor so many times to pull up and jack a 3. I don't know any coaches who think pull up 3's in transition are good shots to take. Yes, lots of players do it, but lots of players always make stupid decisions on the court.



> Is it possible to flip your conclusion on its head and say that Lebron, Wade and Nique have had high point totals in games where their teams didn't even need them to score as the rest of the team may have been shooting well (reflected in the player's higher assist totals), and therefore its these players who have been the actual stat padders. Where as Kobe and Jordan while being able to score at will only do so when the rest of their team is playing poorly?


Hmm... its possible in games, but I'm heavily doubting if you investigated that would be the case in general. In writing my article I've looked at christ, 100's of box scores and didn't see that. And its not like I'm denying this happens. It does. But there is a direct coralation between higher FG%'s and higher assist totals for these star players. If your star takes a shot that means your role player does not shoot. If you keep doing that all game, it means the role players will have difficulty to get into the flow of the game and find a rhythm which is so instrumental to playing at your peak.

Its just basketball sense. When the guy the offense is focused on is making good decisions they use their ability to create so easily to draw attention from the defense. They get the double or what have you. It causes the defense to collapse on you. You can try to score, or pass to someone the defense has taken it's attention off of for an easier basket. In a properly running offense you team is continuously taking the easiest and highest outcome shot possible each time down the floor. So it makes sense that if your star type slasher guy is drawing attention and makes good decisions on when to shoot or pass the result is creating easy buckets for him and his teammates then both their FG% and his dimes go up together. Stars and teams play poorly/well together as a general rule when you look past the points.



> You stated in your article that you expected the results to show a drop in a assists for all players as their scoring increases. So the surprise isn't that this actually was the case for Kobe (and Jordan), but rather that it didn't for Wade, Lebron and Nique. Why didn't you write your article from that POV instead of as a knock on Kobe?


Well, I wrote it in response to a friend who's a Kobe fan who was stating the oft repeated diatribe about how Kobe's team held back the best scorer since Jordan. When I brought up how I felt Kobe played, which was as I've described, he told me that I was just full of it. Kobe's high assist totals show a totally different story. Cept I've watched lots of Kobe's high scoring games over the years, and I don't remember him playing very many complete one's if his shot is falling. So I wrote the response.

Also, as I stated in the article, there was going to be an overabundance of media hype around this guy with the normal ring jabber that everyone is so obsessed with. We were already hearing it build up before the playoffs. Analysts had their minds made up about what Kobe winning or losing was going to mean to his legacy before he'd actually played a game to judge him on. Then before the finals it was even more stupid. I actually read a guy stat that if Kobe won it puts him in the top 3, but if he lost it put him in the top 30. That BS is so ignorant. As if someone goes down like that based on winning or losing 4 games out of thousands. Players should be judged based on how they 'play' and contribute, not how successful their teams are. So I wanted to make a response to that hype (and a response to my friend who was hyping Kobe, I think he has a Kobe life sized member in his room  ) that said "hey, before you let 4 games determine your thinking, look at what has actually happen, just on the court, and why Kobe is considered such a good scorer. Now compare it to others. Keep your head on your shoulders."

Lastly, I could have written it that way, but those dudes were out of the playoffs. It was my last article before those finals so I wrote about people playing.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. do you understand that? offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace.


Hmm......


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i can't believe this is so difficult. you really have no idea what you're talking about. there are different components to offensive efficiency. turnover rate is one. off reb % is another. and ts% is another. ts% can be separated between efg% and ft/fga. ts% is scoring efficiency. it has nothing to do with pace. offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. do you understand that? offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. ts% has nothing to do with pace. ts% is a direct component of offensive efficiency. and the only one directly related to scoring the basketball. how efficiently you score (ts%). how you protect your possessions (to %). how you continue your possessions on missed shots (off reb%). that's offensive efficiency. got it yet?


Hmm... is Cedrick Maxwell the most efficient scorer of all time?


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> i can't believe this is so difficult. you really have no idea what you're talking about. there are different components to offensive efficiency. turnover rate is one. off reb % is another. and ts% is another. ts% can be separated between efg% and ft/fga. ts% is scoring efficiency. it has nothing to do with pace. offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. do you understand that? offensive efficiency has nothing to do with pace. ts% has nothing to do with pace. ts% is a direct component of offensive efficiency. and the only one directly related to scoring the basketball. how efficiently you score (ts%). how you protect your possessions (to %). how you continue your possessions on missed shots (off reb%). that's offensive efficiency. got it yet?


Heh, and I get what you're saying and know what OE is. But for the record, not having the ball because someone else got the board, or cuz you dropped it on the way to the hoop directly affects scoring it. TS% is not OE. If you turned over the ball 99 times out of 100, but made one basket, you have 100% TS% and a crap,crap, crap OE. They're just not the same thing dude.

Now, a player's offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency is points scored per 100 possessions. It assumes an attempt at shooting every possession because that's what a team does. Tries to shoot every single possession. Jose Calderone has an incredible all time true shooting percentage but his scoring per 100 possessions is not all time at all. You're assuming that Calderone tries to score 'every' possession but he does not, at all. No one does and if they did their TS% would plummet which is why using TS% for scoring per 100 possessions is so inherently flawed. This is what I'm trying to tell you.

I've been making these points over and over. I don't know what else there is to say.


----------



## JerryWest

Smush is a scrub, you lose any credibility by defending him.

Compare Kobe w Smush and Wade w Smush, you have to amazed Kobe won at all.


----------



## Cap

I don't think this guy actually speaks English as his first language, so I think that may explain why he continues to misinterpret people's posts. That explains the basic lack of comprehension of TS%, multiple-regression, etc., for the most part.


----------



## indiefan23

KennethTo said:


> Smush is a scrub, you lose any credibility by defending him.
> 
> Compare Kobe w Smush and Wade w Smush, you have to amazed Kobe won at all.


My cred is fine. I say he had potential. He did and it was blatantly obvious. People without potential don't have strings of 20 point games vs NBA competition. They also don't get on sports center for a wack of dunks. 12/4/3 and 1.7 steals and 45% shooting in 33 minutes is not horrible for a role playing guard and absolutely indicates potential to be a solid contributor. 4.8/4.2/2.4 with .9 steals and 41% shooting and can't move much anymore is a scrub, and that's the corpse Lebron was starting in Cleveland for 82 games, AKA Eric Snow. He got to the finals starting him. Smush is an excuse, not a reason.

How is it credible in any way to compare 9 games with Wade to 2 years with Kobe?  You're just slinging random insults. So....


----------



## Jamel Irief

Is there something wrong with saying Kerr was more efficient than Kobe? Shouldn't a guy that only shoots open shots and is the 5th biggest focus of the defense be more efficient?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> My cred is fine. I say he had potential. He did and it was blatantly obvious. People without potential don't have strings of 20 point games vs NBA competition. They also don't get on sports center for a wack of dunks. 12/4/3 and 1.7 steals and 45% shooting in 33 minutes is not horrible for a role playing guard and absolutely indicates potential to be a solid contributor. 4.8/4.2/2.4 with .9 steals and 41% shooting and can't move much anymore is a scrub, and that's the corpse Lebron was starting in Cleveland for 82 games, AKA Eric Snow. He got to the finals starting him. Smush is an excuse, not a reason.
> 
> How is it credible in any way to compare 9 games with Wade to 2 years with Kobe?  You're just slinging random insults. So....


and smush was out of the league a year later. and the lakers got much better without him. maybe he was part of the problem? impossible! 

for all the stats you throw out attempting to show how good he was, he had a PER of 11.6 in '07, which was amongst the worst in the league.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> My cred is fine. I say he had potential. He did and it was blatantly obvious. People without potential don't have strings of 20 point games vs NBA competition. They also don't get on sports center for a wack of dunks. 12/4/3 and 1.7 steals and 45% shooting in 33 minutes is not horrible for a role playing guard and absolutely indicates potential to be a solid contributor. 4.8/4.2/2.4 with .9 steals and 41% shooting and can't move much anymore is a scrub, and that's the corpse Lebron was starting in Cleveland for 82 games, AKA Eric Snow. He got to the finals starting him. Smush is an excuse, not a reason.
> 
> How is it credible in any way to compare 9 games with Wade to 2 years with Kobe?  You're just slinging random insults. So....


Smush was a big fat zero on every other team but the Lakers and yet you somehow manage to turn that into a knock on Kobe? Michael made Pippen and elevated the play of his scrubs, Scalabrine and Davis became contributors because of Garnett... and yet you refuse to acknowledge Kobe having a hand in Pau's, Ariza's, Parker's, Cook's, Bynum's or anyone elses improvement? 34 pages and I still don't understand your logic and reasoning behind this.


----------



## Jamel Irief

indiefan23 said:


> My cred is fine. I say he had potential. He did and it was blatantly obvious. People without potential don't have strings of 20 point games vs NBA competition. They also don't get on sports center for a wack of dunks. 12/4/3 and 1.7 steals and 45% shooting in 33 minutes is not horrible for a role playing guard and absolutely indicates potential to be a solid contributor. 4.8/4.2/2.4 with .9 steals and 41% shooting and can't move much anymore is a scrub, and that's the corpse Lebron was starting in Cleveland for 82 games, AKA Eric Snow. He got to the finals starting him. Smush is an excuse, not a reason.
> 
> How is it credible in any way to compare 9 games with Wade to 2 years with Kobe?  You're just slinging random insults. So....


Why do you think Smush only played 9 games with Wade? Did the Heat not agree with your assesment of Smush's talents? I keep asking you this and only thing you gave me close to a straight answer was Kobe ruined his confidence for life.

If the bulls sign Smush this offseason and trade for stellar championship level role player Sasha will you consider that a successful offseason? What if they get Kwame too?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Heh, and I get what you're saying and know what OE is. But for the record, not having the ball because someone else got the board, or cuz you dropped it on the way to the hoop directly affects scoring it.


no ****. you're repeating what i said. ts% reflects the scoring component of oe, and reb rate and to % the other components. 




indiefan23 said:


> TS% is not OE.


again, no ****. it's a direct component of oe.



indiefan23 said:


> If you turned over the ball 99 times out of 100, but made one basket, you have 100% TS% and a crap,crap, crap OE. They're just not the same thing dude.


yes, and we can explicitly measure the turnover component. that's to%. so you can measure the to component, and the scoring component. and alas, the rebounding component. 



indiefan23 said:


> Now, a player's offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency is points scored per 100 possessions. It assumes an attempt at shooting every possession because that's what a team does. Tries to shoot every single possession. Jose Calderone has an incredible all time true shooting percentage but his scoring per 100 possessions is not all time at all. You're assuming that Calderone tries to score 'every' possession but he does not, at all. No one does and if they did their TS% would plummet which is why using TS% for scoring per 100 possessions is so inherently flawed. This is what I'm trying to tell you.


ts% is a measurement. it makes no assumptions. it has nothing to do with volume, doesn't measure it, doesn't claim to. points in relation to actual scoring attempts. individual ts%'s roll up to team ts%'s, which again is a direct component of oe.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Why do you think Smush only played 9 games with Wade? Did the Heat not agree with your assesment of Smush's talents? I keep asking you this and only thing you gave me close to a straight answer was Kobe ruined his confidence for life.
> 
> If the bulls sign Smush this offseason and trade for stellar championship level role player Sasha will you consider that a successful offseason? What if they get Kwame too?


I've already answered. He got in a fight with a parking attendant and 'scratched her' and since they were. What answer do you want? Smush was a 28 year old dude by that point. His last shot before he started to get to the end of his prime was with the Lakers before he got too old to be wroth investing in and he more then showed flashes. Smush had potential and that's 'why' he got signed to a bunch of teams. Role players who get to the finals playing significant minutes are... champ role players. What if you just accepted the things I've said that are actually true instead of just trying to tear everything down?


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> no ****. you're repeating what i said. ts% reflects the scoring component of oe, and reb rate and to % the other components.
> 
> again, no ****. it's a direct component of oe.
> 
> yes, and we can explicitly measure the turnover component. that's to%. so you can measure the to component, and the scoring component. and alas, the rebounding component.
> 
> ts% is a measurement. it makes no assumptions. it has nothing to do with volume, doesn't measure it, doesn't claim to. points in relation to actual scoring attempts. individual ts%'s roll up to team ts%'s, which again is a direct component of oe.


Dude, as I've pointed out, by definition, Offensive Efficiency is points per 100 possessions. TS% is points per 100 shots. Possessions and shots are totally different things. Boarding and turnovers 'affect' the 'points you score' per 100 possessions. You are just wrong. Its a pithy, semantic almost inconsequential definition that is refuted by the FACT, this is not a subjective meander of thought, its a FACT that Cedric Maxwell is NOT the most efficient scorer of all time. Sure, its a 'direct component' of offensive efficiency, but it is NOT offensive or scoring efficiency like you said. You post TS% and call it scoring efficiency, and its WRONG! You don't say "oh well, his TS%, a component of scoring efficiency is low" you use them interchangeably and its just blatantly misrepresenting the stats. Jose Calderone does not score the more points per 100 possessions then Kobe and Lebron.

A guy who drops the ball for a turnover on 99 attempts in garbage time while going to the hoop but makes one shot and has a 100 TS% is not an efficient scorer. The TOs prevents him from being one. If those take place over a whole season, he has a scoring efficiency of like, 2/100*82. He is not efficient. You are wrong. I'm sure you're pretty smart so you're not used to it coping with this, but you are just not right. There's a big difference between being an efficient 'shooter' and efficient 'scorer' and you're claiming that TS% is the measurement for both. Its not. The best measurement is points/possessions*100. You can figure that out closeishly if you want by taking total points/(minutes/48*possessions)*100. Scoring efficiency answers the question 'how efficient is he at scoring points'. TS% answers the questions 'WHEN' he shoots, how efficient is he? Its a subtle, yet distinct difference.

Its in the pudding kflo. TS% gives you a ranking of great shooters. Ya know, I honestly wouldn't be such a dick about it if you didn't come at me like you did claiming how much I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> Is there something wrong with saying Kerr was more efficient than Kobe? Shouldn't a guy that only shoots open shots and is the 5th biggest focus of the defense be more efficient?


What is Kerr's attempt efficiency? That should answer your question.


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> Smush was a big fat zero on every other team but the Lakers and yet you somehow manage to turn that into a knock on Kobe? Michael made Pippen and elevated the play of his scrubs, Scalabrine and Davis became contributors because of Garnett... and yet you refuse to acknowledge Kobe having a hand in Pau's, Ariza's, Parker's, Cook's, Bynum's or anyone elses improvement? 34 pages and I still don't understand your logic and reasoning behind this.


Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.

Ariza always had shown lots of promise but spent every year since his rookie year injured, put up similar and/or better numbers in Orlando. It seems he used Kobe's shooting program and it helped. I'm going to say that had lots to do with Ariza you know, practicing his shooting though too. Ariza was so enamored with playing there though that after winning a ring he turned down the mid-level exception in LA for... the exact same mid-level exception in Houston.

Parker showed a hell of a lot of promise to start his campaign in LA but Kobe feuded with him and by the next season his progress went way, way down hill. Parker's per /36 numbers (which almost always increase with minutes) were better in Cleveland with less minutes to boot.

Bynum he told his GM to trade in a parking lot. The kid was out of HS. Kobe hated on him openly and totally had a poor assessment of his ability. What role did Kobe play in that? Its pretty obvious he didn't think much of Bynum until he realized he was stuck with him and his team would trade Kobe instead of Bynum. Then Bynum, a really gifted prospect started turning flashes into flashes of consistency. Then he got hurt. Then he didn't play as well this past season. Then he got hurt again. ie: he's not proven anything yet.

Brian Cook peaked 3 years ago, declined, and shot his best 3 point percentage of his career in Orlando after the trade.

Seriously, what is it you think he's done that I'm ignoring?


----------



## Tragedy

indiefan23 said:


> Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.
> 
> Ariza always had shown lots of promise but spent every year since his rookie year injured, put up similar and/or better numbers in Orlando. It seems he used Kobe's shooting program and it helped. I'm going to say that had lots to do with Ariza you know, practicing his shooting though too. Ariza was so enamored with playing there though that after winning a ring he turned down the mid-level exception in LA for... the exact same mid-level exception in Houston.
> 
> Parker showed a hell of a lot of promise to start his campaign in LA but Kobe feuded with him and by the next season his progress went way, way down hill. Parker's per /36 numbers (which almost always increase with minutes) were better in Cleveland with less minutes to boot.
> 
> Bynum he told his GM to trade in a parking lot. The kid was out of HS. Kobe hated on him openly and totally had a poor assessment of his ability. What role did Kobe play in that? Its pretty obvious he didn't think much of Bynum until he realized he was stuck with him and his team would trade Kobe instead of Bynum. Then Bynum, a really gifted prospect started turning flashes into flashes of consistency. Then he got hurt. Then he didn't play as well this past season. Then he got hurt again. ie: he's not proven anything yet.
> 
> Brian Cook peaked 3 years ago, declined, and shot his best 3 point percentage of his career in Orlando after the trade.
> 
> Seriously, what is it you think he's done that I'm ignoring?


Give it up man. Pau was on a 50 win team, no one is going to say he isn't a good player. But he didn't win anything until coming to LA. And LOL @ parker 'feuding' with kobe.

Also, throw that 36 minute crap out. Players production is not tied to playing time so strictly. You can play a guy 13 minutes and get 10 and 5 and wouldn't necessarily get 20 and 10 if you doubled their minutes.

Anyway, why would ron Artest want to go to LA instead of Cleveland or anywhere else? Just the weather? Or maybe Pau? Yea, I think it's Pau.


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Dude, as I've pointed out, by definition, Offensive Efficiency is points per 100 possessions. TS% is points per 100 shots. Possessions and shots are totally different things. Boarding and turnovers 'affect' the 'points you score' per 100 possessions. You are just wrong. Its a pithy, semantic almost inconsequential definition that is refuted by the FACT, this is not a subjective meander of thought, its a FACT that Cedric Maxwell is NOT the most efficient scorer of all time. Sure, its a 'direct component' of offensive efficiency, but it is NOT offensive or scoring efficiency like you said. You post TS% and call it scoring efficiency, and its WRONG! You don't say "oh well, his TS%, a component of scoring efficiency is low" you use them interchangeably and its just blatantly misrepresenting the stats. Jose Calderone does not score the more points per 100 possessions then Kobe and Lebron.
> 
> A guy who drops the ball for a turnover on 99 attempts in garbage time while going to the hoop but makes one shot and has a 100 TS% is not an efficient scorer. The TOs prevents him from being one. If those take place over a whole season, he has a scoring efficiency of like, 2/100*82. He is not efficient. You are wrong. I'm sure you're pretty smart so you're not used to it coping with this, but you are just not right. There's a big difference between being an efficient 'shooter' and efficient 'scorer' and you're claiming that TS% is the measurement for both. Its not. The best measurement is points/possessions*100. You can figure that out closeishly if you want by taking total points/(minutes/48*possessions)*100. Scoring efficiency answers the question 'how efficient is he at scoring points'. TS% answers the questions 'WHEN' he shoots, how efficient is he? Its a subtle, yet distinct difference.
> 
> Its in the pudding kflo. TS% gives you a ranking of great shooters. Ya know, I honestly wouldn't be such a dick about it if you didn't come at me like you did claiming how much I don't know what I'm talking about.



you have the information to assess a guy who scores 2 ppg, has a ts% of 100% and a to% of 99%. it's not very good. so yeah, i keep saying that turnovers impact offensive efficiency. which is why to% is an important stat. 

but seriously, points/possessions*100???? 

i'll give you a pretty simple example. 

player a and player b play on opposing teams. player a scores 40 points in 100 possessions. player b scores 38 points in 100 possessions. player a takes 80 shots and has 20 turnovers. player b takes 20 shots and has 0 turnovers. by your measure, player a has an efficiency of 40, player b 38. player a more efficient than player b. is that your position? i'll ask you - who was more efficient, and who was more likely to be playing on the winning team?


----------



## kflo

indiefan23 said:


> Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.


actually, the year before he got to the lakers, his team went 17-42 in the 59 games pau played, and 22-60 overall. the year he was traded to the laker they were 9-30 with gasol before the trade. that's 31-90 in 2 years.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.
> 
> Ariza always had shown lots of promise but spent every year since his rookie year injured, put up similar and/or better numbers in Orlando. It seems he used Kobe's shooting program and it helped. I'm going to say that had lots to do with Ariza you know, practicing his shooting though too. Ariza was so enamored with playing there though that after winning a ring he turned down the mid-level exception in LA for... the exact same mid-level exception in Houston.
> 
> Parker showed a hell of a lot of promise to start his campaign in LA but Kobe feuded with him and by the next season his progress went way, way down hill. Parker's per /36 numbers (which almost always increase with minutes) were better in Cleveland with less minutes to boot.
> 
> Bynum he told his GM to trade in a parking lot. The kid was out of HS. Kobe hated on him openly and totally had a poor assessment of his ability. What role did Kobe play in that? Its pretty obvious he didn't think much of Bynum until he realized he was stuck with him and his team would trade Kobe instead of Bynum. Then Bynum, a really gifted prospect started turning flashes into flashes of consistency. Then he got hurt. Then he didn't play as well this past season. Then he got hurt again. ie: he's not proven anything yet.
> 
> Brian Cook peaked 3 years ago, declined, and shot his best 3 point percentage of his career in Orlando after the trade.
> 
> Seriously, what is it you think he's done that I'm ignoring?


You're an idiot. There really isn't any possible way to sugarcoat this.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Plastic Man said:


> You're an idiot. There really isn't any possible way to sugarcoat this.


Thong is: had porr little indie kept arguing the merits of his "formula", it would be Ok, it's merits debatable or not.

Nut poor sap is going way overboard claiming Kobe Bryant ruined players careers and stuff. Thus showing his true colors: a Kobe hater.

We get it, little indie: you don't like the dude. 
Can we move along, please?


----------



## sonicFLAME6

You guys need to stop replying to this clown and just let the thread die. It has been a pointless thread since page 1.


----------



## indiefan23

PauloCatarino said:


> Thong is: had porr little indie kept arguing the merits of his "formula", it would be Ok, it's merits debatable or not.


Well, I did do that. Other people didn't want to talk about that and instead focused on some of my most trival points, but you know, I'm an open guy.



> Nut poor sap is going way overboard claiming Kobe Bryant ruined players careers and stuff. Thus showing his true colors: a Kobe hater.


I claimed he ruined other's careers? I claimed he hurt his own career, no one else's really. I claim he failed to develop the potential of some of his players who had potential, and some truly great players, by feuding with them and listening to his ego instead of his coach. Yea, he probably hurt Smush's only real shot at making it, but who knows what part Kobe had in that as well. Smush was also an uneducated poor kid from the projects though, so I'll be a little harder on Kobe who grew up the son of a jet setting rich basketball star.



> We get it, little indie: you don't like the dude.
> Can we move along, please?


Move along? IMHO, its been moving along quite nicely. There is this cool thing on the internet where I can't force you to do anything. I can't even make you read a single letter. So what that means is 'you' are forcing yourself to take part in the way 'you' want to. I get it, you love Kobe, and even when I make a lot of very valid points about the guy your personal attachment to him prevents you from viewing the situation fairly. I don't get why it's 'me' who's bias when I've stated over and over how great and talented Kobe is and firmly believe he could had the talent to even be much, much greater.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> and smush was out of the league a year later. and the lakers got much better without him. maybe he was part of the problem? impossible!
> 
> for all the stats you throw out attempting to show how good he was, he had a PER of 11.6 in '07, which was amongst the worst in the league.


Hmm... ya know, I'm not making up that Kobe was not getting along with his teammates. Not teammate mind you. LA 'chose' Bynum over Kobe you know and tried to ship him out because they had had it with him and it was Kobe's no-trade clause, not the Lakers, who stopped the trade from happening. The things I'm listing here are precisely why. He had a PER of 11.6 in 07, way from from 13.4 the year before and his main problem was his interpersonal problems with Kobe. None of that is opinion but all fact. Smush was out of the league a year later but that's hardly the slam it used to be. Smush is getting paid good money to be a star in a country that's got 4 times the people and is even more crazy about hoops then at home. Smush is taking last second shots with the game on the line instead of being blamed for his star losing. I mean, has no one considered that maybe Smush looked at the options and decided he'd just prefer it and there? He's 27-28 years old, he has NBA talent, so why not be a star? I'd choose the Tigers too honestly.


----------



## indiefan23

Tragedy said:


> Give it up man. Pau was on a 50 win team, no one is going to say he isn't a good player. But he didn't win anything until coming to LA.


Yea, Pau lost to the Spurs et al like every other team did. The West was 'so' much more competitive then now.



> And LOL @ parker 'feuding' with kobe.


Why? Its no secret Kobe hated the guy.



> Also, throw that 36 minute crap out. Players production is not tied to playing time so strictly. You can play a guy 13 minutes and get 10 and 5 and wouldn't necessarily get 20 and 10 if you doubled their minutes.


Its very soundly shown statistically that player's production actually will increase given more minutes. It makes sense as ball is a flow/rhythm game. When you're on the floor for longer stretches you get really warmed up and your play in general improve.



> Anyway, why would ron Artest want to go to LA instead of Cleveland or anywhere else? Just the weather? Or maybe Pau? Yea, I think it's Pau.


Who cares about Artest who just wants to play on a stacked team. Why would Ariza not want to stay right after winning a ring when offered the same money he went to the Rockets for???? That's the point being made. Dude won a ring and still does not want to be on the team.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> you have the information to assess a guy who scores 2 ppg, has a ts% of 100% and a to% of 99%. it's not very good. so yeah, i keep saying that turnovers impact offensive efficiency. which is why to% is an important stat.
> 
> but seriously, points/possessions*100????
> 
> i'll give you a pretty simple example.
> 
> player a and player b play on opposing teams. player a scores 40 points in 100 possessions. player b scores 38 points in 100 possessions. player a takes 80 shots and has 20 turnovers. player b takes 20 shots and has 0 turnovers. by your measure, player a has an efficiency of 40, player b 38. player a more efficient than player b. is that your position? i'll ask you - who was more efficient, and who was more likely to be playing on the winning team?


Absolutely agree with you Kflo (and that's a rhetorical question, obviously) which brings this side track full circle. No stat exists that indicates if you have 'played well' or not. Whats needed is multiple stats. The shame is that we have not even scratched the surface on what is available in hoop stats. With them a stat like PER probably could indicate who's playing better. Not there yet though nor is my stat in any way something so comprehensive. Its merely a useful indicator of a facet of a player's game and how they balance scoring and passing to arrive at their numbers.


----------



## indiefan23

kflo said:


> actually, the year before he got to the lakers, his team went 17-42 in the 59 games pau played, and 22-60 overall. the year he was traded to the laker they were 9-30 with gasol before the trade. that's 31-90 in 2 years.


What? Good lord man, just stop it already.

Pau didn't even start playing that season until December and didn't even crack 30 minutes till Dec 30'th. Not even a mention that Battier was gone for that whole period and replaced with rookies leaving Mike Miller as the team's best player. So he started playing a careful 30 minutes again right after they fired his coach and replaced him with a dude who had 0 experience, Tony Barone.

Now, why wasn't he playing? Because only 3 short months before he had broken his foot, it was still healing, was a 'really' serious injury and Pau was no where near 100%. He didn't crack 40 minutes once till the season was half over. I mean, he showed up to a team that was 6-24 with a broken foot and you're like, slamming him for it. Aside from all that, the owner had been trying to sell the team for two years and was cutting assets to make the team easier to sell which is why he traded Pau for a salary dump in the first place. IMHO, Pau made lemonade with way too yound and old support in Memphis.


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> You're an idiot. There really isn't any possible way to sugarcoat this.


That's okay, just show me which of those statements about those players is idiotic. You said I ignored how he helped Pau, Ariza, Cook, and Parker. I'm okay with you calling me a name, and mods please don't give an infraction because I'm comfortable with being called an idiot. I only ask which of the following statements about those players is not true and you actually give an example of my idiocy.

Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.

Ariza always had shown lots of promise but spent every year since his rookie year injured, put up similar and/or better numbers in Orlando. It seems he used Kobe's shooting program and it helped. I'm going to say that had lots to do with Ariza you know, practicing his shooting though too. Ariza was so enamored with playing there though that after winning a ring he turned down the mid-level exception in LA for... the exact same mid-level exception in Houston.

Parker showed a hell of a lot of promise to start his campaign in LA but Kobe feuded with him and by the next season his progress went way, way down hill. Parker's per /36 numbers (which almost always increase with minutes) were better in Cleveland with less minutes to boot and his PER continued to decline as he played with Kobe instead of increase.

Bynum he told his GM to trade in a parking lot. The kid was out of HS. Kobe hated on him openly and totally had a poor assessment of his ability. What role did Kobe play in that? Its pretty obvious he didn't think much of Bynum until he realized he was stuck with him and his team would trade Kobe instead of Bynum. Then Bynum, a really gifted prospect started turning flashes into flashes of consistency. Then he got hurt. Then he didn't play as well this past season. Then he got hurt again. ie: he's not proven anything yet, nor has Kobe shown that he can actually bring Bynum to the next level, or helped him get to the level he's at.

Brian Cook peaked 3 years ago, declined, and shot his best 3 point percentage of his career in Orlando after the trade.

Seriously, what is it you think he's done that I'm ignoring? Those are all facts plastic man.

The cool thing about facts: even if its your friendly neighborhood village idiot reporting them, they're still facts, and still true.


----------



## indiefan23

S2theONIC said:


> You guys need to stop replying to this clown and just let the thread die. It has been a pointless thread since page 1.


I don't think its hit 35 pages because its pointless. Sorry if you don't like the points made, but I don't see you offering much to improve anything at all except the odd nay say. Sorry to tell you.


----------



## Kneejoh

Lol yea Plastic man said it best. You are an idiot.

You can have your team of 

Smush
Sasha
Luke
Brian Cook
Kwame

apparently those are championship caliber players. Jesus himself couldn't make the playoffs with that team. So to expect any more of Kobe is retarded. But that really isn't a surprise with some of the things that you've said. 

Also considering that none of these players have said that Kobe hindered their careers I take their silence over your stupidity any day. I'd dig up players and find ways that every other star has hindered players careers just to prove you wrong but then I remember two things. One, I'm not retarded, and two, they are all men who make their own decisions. 

Kobe can't stop anybody from working on their game in the summer. As much as you want to believe that every players career rests in their own hands.


----------



## Plastic Man

indiefan23 said:


> That's okay, just show me which of those statements about those players is idiotic. You said I ignored how he helped Pau, Ariza, Cook, and Parker. I'm okay with you calling me a name, and mods please don't give an infraction because I'm comfortable with being called an idiot. I only ask which of the following statements about those players is not true and you actually give an example of my idiocy.
> 
> Pau was a 50 win team franchise player before he got to the Lakers.
> 
> Ariza always had shown lots of promise but spent every year since his rookie year injured, put up similar and/or better numbers in Orlando. It seems he used Kobe's shooting program and it helped. I'm going to say that had lots to do with Ariza you know, practicing his shooting though too. Ariza was so enamored with playing there though that after winning a ring he turned down the mid-level exception in LA for... the exact same mid-level exception in Houston.
> 
> Parker showed a hell of a lot of promise to start his campaign in LA but Kobe feuded with him and by the next season his progress went way, way down hill. Parker's per /36 numbers (which almost always increase with minutes) were better in Cleveland with less minutes to boot and his PER continued to decline as he played with Kobe instead of increase.
> 
> Bynum he told his GM to trade in a parking lot. The kid was out of HS. Kobe hated on him openly and totally had a poor assessment of his ability. What role did Kobe play in that? Its pretty obvious he didn't think much of Bynum until he realized he was stuck with him and his team would trade Kobe instead of Bynum. Then Bynum, a really gifted prospect started turning flashes into flashes of consistency. Then he got hurt. Then he didn't play as well this past season. Then he got hurt again. ie: he's not proven anything yet, nor has Kobe shown that he can actually bring Bynum to the next level, or helped him get to the level he's at.
> 
> Brian Cook peaked 3 years ago, declined, and shot his best 3 point percentage of his career in Orlando after the trade.
> 
> Seriously, what is it you think he's done that I'm ignoring? Those are all facts plastic man.
> 
> The cool thing about facts: even if its your friendly neighborhood village idiot reporting them, they're still facts, and still true.


Okay.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

indiefan23 said:


> I don't think its hit 35 pages because its pointless. Sorry if you don't like the points made, but I don't see you offering much to improve anything at all except the odd nay say. Sorry to tell you.


You're not hurting my feelings, afterall I can still post on this forum and you can't. Follow the rules, stop spamming our boards, just a friendly reminder for next time. :evil:


----------



## indiefan23

Plastic Man said:


> Okay.


Just okay? Am I an idiot or not? I made the above statements and you called me an idiot for it. So which of them are idiotic?


----------



## indiefan23

thug_immortal8 said:


> Lol yea Plastic man said it best. You are an idiot.
> 
> You can have your team of
> 
> Smush
> Sasha
> Luke
> Brian Cook
> Kwame


Uh, how about Lamar Odom and Caron Butler? How about even just Lamar Odom? Cook/Sasha/Luke are championship level role players because as role players they have made it to championship games/series multiple times. This is the land of 'logic'.



> apparently those are championship caliber players. Jesus himself couldn't make the playoffs with that team. So to expect any more of Kobe is retarded. But that really isn't a surprise with some of the things that you've said.


With those teams I expect him make the playoffs and not to be a middling team. That's before you consider his role in breaking up a team that had just made the finals is also his role in creating that team that he had so having the weaker team is very much the bed he made as well. He doesn't get a pass for playing on broken team when he was a major (if not the biggest) factor in breaking it.



> Also considering that none of these players have said that Kobe hindered their careers I take their silence over your stupidity any day. I'd dig up players and find ways that every other star has hindered players careers just to prove you wrong but then I remember two things. One, I'm not retarded, and two, they are all men who make their own decisions.


Its an unwritten rule that you don't deal with personal matters in the press. But Smush did go on record stating that "the problems with the Lakers begin and end with Kobe Bryant." Other players like Radmonovic have stated frustration playing with Kobe as well.



> Kobe can't stop anybody from working on their game in the summer. As much as you want to believe that every players career rests in their own hands.


Why work on your shot when you know you won't be taking any? I think its about motivation/leadership and I think its a skill all franchise guys have in varying degrees. Kobe's inability to motivate his team is a real thing. Kobe can't stop people from working in the summer but you know what, he for sure can do the opposite and help get guys doing it in the summer the same way lots of other players do for their teams. I think Kobe is a late bloomer and is just starting to get this stuff right now in at the end of his prime. Guys like Duncan and Bron got it as soon as they came into the league. Though Duncan had the benefit of playing with Robinson in San Antonio... probably a much easier environment to learn the ropes in then in LA with Shaq so I'll give Kobe that for sure, but its not like this aspect does not exist for him.


----------



## Tragedy

ugh. right back at it.


----------



## Damian Necronamous

I'm sick and tired of the Kobe argument.

The bottomline is that he's been to the Finals 6 times, and was the 1st or 2nd leading scorer on every team. As the team's leading scorer, he has a 1-2 record in Finals series. As the second leading scorer, he has a 3-0 record in Finals series. Interpret that however you wish. Just remember that Shaq was one of the most dominating players of all-time during that threepeat run.


----------



## indiefan23

Damian Necronamous said:


> I'm sick and tired of the Kobe argument.
> 
> The bottomline is that he's been to the Finals 6 times, and was the 1st or 2nd leading scorer on every team. As the team's leading scorer, he has a 1-2 record in Finals series. As the second leading scorer, he has a 3-0 record in Finals series. Interpret that however you wish. Just remember that Shaq was one of the most dominating players of all-time during that threepeat run.


Yep, I think that's a pretty concise summary honestly.


----------



## indiefan23

Jamel Irief said:


> It's already been estabilished that anyone that challenges him on anything is a Kobe stan.


Naw... hardly... I just thought he was cuz of his avy thing. I guess he's a Griz fan. I would be mad if I was a Griz fan though. ;0 Could have been a better draft. In a year can't Rubio re-enter the draft again???


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

indiefan23 said:


> LA 'chose' Bynum over Kobe you know and tried to ship him out because they had had it with him and it was Kobe's no-trade clause, not the Lakers, who stopped the trade from happening.





yeah trade the guy who was making them a whole lot of money and keep the kid who has'nt proven anything. (mind you guys, this was *BEFORE* Bynum had a mini explosion and showed his potential 2 years ago)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## indiefan23

aznzen said:


> yeah trade the guy who was making them a whole lot of money and keep the kid who has'nt proven anything. (mind you guys, this was *BEFORE* Bynum had a mini explosion and showed his potential 2 years ago)


Weeelllll.... they tried to trade Kobe to chicago and he used his no-trade clause to block it. What does it look like they did?


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Weeelllll.... they tried to trade Kobe to chicago and he used his no-trade clause to block it. What does it look like they did?


I honestly don't understand why you're so relentless, give it up already.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> I honestly don't understand why you're so relentless, give it up already.


Relentless? I think I have not been here for like, a month. I'd still like to see if someone can give some insight on the math etc of the stat.


----------



## Luke

indiefan23 said:


> Relentless? I think I have not been here for like, a month. I'd still like to see if someone can give some insight on the math etc of the stat.


The fact that this is essentially the only thread you've posted in (200 of your 212 posts have got to come from this thread.) is what makes you relentless.


----------



## Drewbs

indiefan23 said:


> Weeelllll.... they tried to trade Kobe to chicago and he used his no-trade clause to block it. What does it look like they did?


Kobe wanted to be traded to Chicago, but blocked it because the Lakers wanted Luol Deng.


----------



## indiefan23

VanillaPrice said:


> The fact that this is essentially the only thread you've posted in (200 of your 212 posts have got to come from this thread.) is what makes you relentless.


? Weeeellll.... this thread is about a stat I made... there been a bunch of BS and a bunch of trolls, but I like to see discussion about it. Scrutiny is a good thing right? I don't see whats wrong with posting in a few threads. I like things a little more in depth I guess???


----------



## indiefan23

Drewbs said:


> Kobe wanted to be traded to Chicago, but blocked it because the Lakers wanted Luol Deng.


Heh, well did he think LA was going to give him away for ben gordon and change?? He was like what, a top 5 player in the league and had a massive salary so its pretty simple to tell that LA would get whoever they wanted from the bulls. Even if you just look at salaries it was pretty obvious Deng would be included. Kobe 'blocked' the trade which is a strong indicator that the Lakers were more then ready to trade him. In the end it worked out well for them cuz they got a ring, but at that point Kobe was not bringing him rings, he was bringing them losses and headaches.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

indiefan23 said:


> In the end it worked out well for them cuz they got a ring, but at that point Kobe was not bringing him rings, he was bringing them losses and headaches.


Kobe did not bring them losses. The best player on the team and best in the league isn't the reason a team is losing. Kobe may have given them headaches but he also gave them urgency. That urgency is what pushed them to make the moves to be a champion. I gaurantee Garnett didn't give the Wolves management any headaches during the decade he was there and they stunk. We saw how that worked out.


----------

