Kobe Haters Are Stuck In 2008Kobe Haters Are Stuck In 2008
By Neil Paine
Filed under Basketball
A rare daguerreotype dated to 20th-century California.
Andrew D. Bernstein / NBAE via Getty Images
Kobe Bryant played his final game Wednesday and sent himself off in spectacular style by scoring 60 points (albeit on 50 shots from the floor). It was quintessential Kobe — grabbing the lead headline even on the night the Golden State Warriors set the all-time NBA record for single-season wins. Kobe could never fade quietly into retirement.
For a stathead such as myself, tracking Kobe’s career arc has been fascinating because it’s existed in near-perfect overlap with the lifespan of basketball analytics. When Bryant made his NBA debut, on Nov. 3, 1996, the field (if you could even call it that) was in an embryonic state. Dean Oliver and John Hollinger were proto-blogging in relative anonymity; the APBRmetrics forum — an early petri dish of smart basketball folks — wouldn’t even become a discussion group board for four-plus years; there was no Basketball-Reference.com, no Player Efficiency Rating, no Sloan Conference, no Nylon Calculus. Over the past 20 seasons, as Kobe’s career unfolded through its successes and growing pains, analytics did too, with the former serving as a touchstone — and lightning rod — for the latter.
The stats were not always kind to Kobe, least of all in his perpetual, mythic struggle against Michael Jordan. Perhaps that comparison would have been less harsh in an earlier era, thanks to a similar ring count and a passing statistical resemblance, but the advanced metrics have consistently debunked the parallel. (They’ve essentially taken on the role of the old noodge at the bar or barbershop, reminding “kids these days” of their historical betters.) Kobe wasn’t nearly as efficient as Jordan, they’d remind; he’d likely never be as valuable no matter what the rings said. Likewise, the numbers always seemed to find some other contemporary upon whom to bestow the “Next Jordan” mantle, be it LeBron James or Dwyane Wade or even Tracy McGrady. As if chasing Jordan’s shadow wasn’t hard enough, the shadow seemed to be armed with the cold, compassionless weaponry of data.
It didn’t help that hoops analytics went through its contrarian phase right around the time Kobe peaked. Every sabermetric movement has a period in which its sport’s sacred cows are officially on notice, and basketball’s came in the mid-2000s — known around these parts as the Hollinger Era — when Bryant embodied many bits of conventional basketball wisdom in need of rigorous auditing. Back then, it was fashionable to unearth the deep cuts, the guys like Carl Landry or Gerald Wallace or, uh, Landry Fields, who didn’t get as much play on SportsCenter but contributed efficiently within their roles. Obsessed with efficiency over context, many in the field downplayed the value of Kobe’s greatest skill — relentless, tireless scoring — and went so far as to suggest that an average player could have notched as many points if given the same number of opportunities. (Note: This is, and always was, insane.) Others raised more valid questions about Kobe’s reputation for clutch shooting and lock-down defense, and these cut more to the core of what fans wanted to know about him and players of his caliber. It was a crucial point for basketball stats; perhaps a fractious relationship between Kobe and stat-geekdom was simply the necessary collateral damage.
Listen to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown, discuss the Warriors’ record-setting season.
Audio Player
https://serve.castfire.com/s:5L8r1/audio/2728240/hottakedown_2016-04-14-134840.64k.mp3?ad_params=zones%3DPreroll%2CPreroll2%2CMidroll%2CMidroll2%2CMidroll3%2CMidroll4%2CMidroll5%2CMidroll6%2CPostroll%2CPostroll2%7Cstation_id%3D2786
00:00
00:00
13:21
iTunes | Download | RSS | Video [/paste:font]
But the Question of Kobe has undeniably helped the analytics movement grow. Rather than pretending that basketball was baseball and settling on those initial narratives about supposedly inefficient star players, the second wave of basketball metrics tended to illuminate the first generation’s blind spots — namely, the dynamic aspects of the game, such as a player’s tangible on-court impact, how different skill sets complement one another and what value should be assigned to every bit of real estate on the floor. As a byproduct, the metrics came around again to the old-school realization that scoring workload matters — and few players in NBA history carried a bigger scoring burden than Bryant, particularly in his prime.
Of course, some of the new stats co-signed longstanding doubts about Bryant’s game. Despite receiving 11 all-defensive team nods from 2000-01 to 2013-14, for instance, he was only in the 41st percentile of defenders by Real Plus-Minus over that timeframe. But others — such as his No. 4 overall ranking by offensive RPM in the same data set — confirmed that the true benefits of Kobe’s game were being masked by box score metrics wearing true-shooting blinders. Had today’s most cutting-edge metrics — like SportVU’s ability to track a shot’s difficulty (not just its efficiency) — existed during Bryant’s prime, we’d be able to interrogate questions like whether Kobe is the “best difficult-shot-maker” ever.
In a lot of ways, we have Bryant to thank for the tools we have available to appreciate the full contribution of stars — like Russell Westbrook — who would have slipped through the cracks during that first wave of basketball analytics, because those tools were at least in part developed to make sense of Kobe.
As the ink dries on this final, morbid chapter of Kobe’s career, even the most stats-savvy of analysts have to acknowledge Bryant’s all-time greatness. According to Value Over Replacement Player, a measure of total contribution that tries to emulate RPM for historical seasons,1 Bryant ranks as the NBA’s 15th-best regular-season player since 1973-74 and its eighth-best in the playoffs, both of which track with the No. 12 all-time ranking he received in a recent ESPN poll of NBA experts.
Those rankings are still probably not as high as many observers would place the Black Mamba. But they do represent a kind of compromise between the traditionalist viewpoint and the first wave of sabermetric assessments that harshly criticized Bryant for his relative lack of efficiency. Bryant’s game had its flaws, and he was certainly no Jordan, but he was a player of undeniable historical importance. His résumé speaks enough to the on-court portion of his legacy, but for statheads, Kobe’s career helps us track the evolution of basketball analytics over time, both in its reaction to his performance and its ability to capture the meaningfulness of that performance in the first place.
High quality poster
Veteran
Kobe haters are the worst kinda people actually
Kobe fans are also stuck in 2008....
360Waves
2 girls and they get along like I'm Lou Will
There are pretty much no offensive analytical statistics in which Kobe positively shows up as a top 10 player, with the exception of VORP, which if you were to use, you'd also have to concede to LeBron being number 1 in VORP over Jordan.
This is why Kobe stans have had to rely on false narratives like "5-2", when, in reality, Kobe was a 13ppg sub-40 percent shooter for his first "ring", the equivalent of Mario Chalmers on the Heat, and he got carried to Shaq for his next 2.
Other false narratives include "bu-bu clutch time", typically used in arguments against LeBron, except again, most statistics show that LeBron is more clutch. Then we talk about "bu-bu defense", but as even the article points out, Kobe has been a mediocre defender his whole career.
At this point, Kobe stans typically morph the argument and resort to non-basketball conversation to emphasize Kobe's greatness. It's around this point some fakkit like @Sccit will begin to talk about how "LeBron is the least respected superstar of all time," or how "Kobe would never let the league get stolen from him the way Curry did to LeBron," while failing to ignore that:
A.) Arguably no superstar has been physically bytched more than Kobe in his whole career. Between Shaq, Raja Bell, Reggie Miller, Chris Childs, so on and so forth. Also constantly caught crying on the bench during losses AND...
B.) LeBron took the league from Kobe in his god damn prime.
Actually, the irony in it all is that the "manufactured superstar" label often bestowed upon LeBron fits Kobe much better. No other superstar has gotten away with being given labels they don't deserve simply off of "reputation" the way Kobe has.
Hopefully this conclude this thread before it even gets off the ground.
This is why Kobe stans have had to rely on false narratives like "5-2", when, in reality, Kobe was a 13ppg sub-40 percent shooter for his first "ring", the equivalent of Mario Chalmers on the Heat, and he got carried to Shaq for his next 2.
Other false narratives include "bu-bu clutch time", typically used in arguments against LeBron, except again, most statistics show that LeBron is more clutch. Then we talk about "bu-bu defense", but as even the article points out, Kobe has been a mediocre defender his whole career.
At this point, Kobe stans typically morph the argument and resort to non-basketball conversation to emphasize Kobe's greatness. It's around this point some fakkit like @Sccit will begin to talk about how "LeBron is the least respected superstar of all time," or how "Kobe would never let the league get stolen from him the way Curry did to LeBron," while failing to ignore that:
A.) Arguably no superstar has been physically bytched more than Kobe in his whole career. Between Shaq, Raja Bell, Reggie Miller, Chris Childs, so on and so forth. Also constantly caught crying on the bench during losses AND...
B.) LeBron took the league from Kobe in his god damn prime.
Actually, the irony in it all is that the "manufactured superstar" label often bestowed upon LeBron fits Kobe much better. No other superstar has gotten away with being given labels they don't deserve simply off of "reputation" the way Kobe has.
Hopefully this conclude this thread before it even gets off the ground.
According to advanced stats used by statheads(
), David Robinson and CHarles barkley are better players than Kareem, Hakeem , Magic, Duncan....)
-Karl Malone is better than Hakeem....
-Kevin Love was top 5 player in the NBA at some point
2008 was a terrible year for the fandom
), David Robinson and CHarles barkley are better players than Kareem, Hakeem , Magic, Duncan....)-Karl Malone is better than Hakeem....
-Kevin Love was top 5 player in the NBA at some point
-nah kobe fans are stuck in 2013
2008 was a terrible year for the fandom
Mantis Toboggan M.D.
Drink wolf cola
And 2013 wasn't a terrible year for those stansAccording to advanced stats used by statheads(
-Karl Malone is better than Hakeem....
-Kevin Love was top 5 player in the NBA at some point
-nah kobe fans are stuck in 2013
2008 was a terrible year for the fandom
?
KOBE HATERS HAVE NO SOUL
THIS OPENING SENTENCE JUS PROVES THAT ANALYTICS IS BULLSHIIT AND CAN BE EXTREMELY MISLEADING WHEN ASSESSING GREATNESS. IF THERE IS ACTUALLY AN ANALYTICAL STAT THAT SHOWS LEBRON TO BE GREATER THAN MJ, WHAT DOES THAT TELL U? THAT U SHOULD KILL YASELF IF U USE ANALYTICS TO ASSESS TALENT.
There are pretty much no offensive analytical statistics in which Kobe positively shows up as a top 10 player, with the exception of VORP, which if you were to use, you'd also have to concede to LeBron being number 1 in VORP over Jordan.
This is why Kobe stans have had to rely on false narratives like "5-2", when, in reality, Kobe was a 13ppg sub-40 percent shooter for his first "ring", the equivalent of Mario Chalmers on the Heat, and he got carried to Shaq for his next 2.
Other false narratives include "bu-bu clutch time", typically used in arguments against LeBron, except again, most statistics show that LeBron is more clutch. Then we talk about "bu-bu defense", but as even the article points out, Kobe has been a mediocre defender his whole career.
At this point, Kobe stans typically morph the argument and resort to non-basketball conversation to emphasize Kobe's greatness. It's around this point some fakkit like @Sccit will begin to talk about how "LeBron is the least respected superstar of all time," or how "Kobe would never let the league get stolen from him the way Curry did to LeBron," while failing to ignore that:
A.) Arguably no superstar has been physically bytched more than Kobe in his whole career. Between Shaq, Raja Bell, Reggie Miller, Chris Childs, so on and so forth. Also constantly caught crying on the bench during losses AND...
B.) LeBron took the league from Kobe in his god damn prime.
Actually, the irony in it all is that the "manufactured superstar" label often bestowed upon LeBron fits Kobe much better. No other superstar has gotten away with being given labels they don't deserve simply off of "reputation" the way Kobe has.
Hopefully this conclude this thread before it even gets off the ground.
LMAO JUS READ THE REST OF YOUR POST, FROM KOBE BEIN "CARRIED" BY SHAQ", TO KOBE BEIN AN "AVERAGE DEFENDER", TO KOBE GETTIN "BIITCHED AROUND" ON THE COURT... I DONT KNO WHERE TO START. KILL YASELF FOREAL BRO.
High quality poster
Veteran
There are pretty much no offensive analytical statistics in which Kobe positively shows up as a top 10 player, with the exception of VORP, which if you were to use, you'd also have to concede to LeBron being number 1 in VORP over Jordan.
This is why Kobe stans have had to rely on false narratives like "5-2", when, in reality, Kobe was a 13ppg sub-40 percent shooter for his first "ring", the equivalent of Mario Chalmers on the Heat, and he got carried to Shaq for his next 2.
Other false narratives include "bu-bu clutch time", typically used in arguments against LeBron, except again, most statistics show that LeBron is more clutch. Then we talk about "bu-bu defense", but as even the article points out, Kobe has been a mediocre defender his whole career.
At this point, Kobe stans typically morph the argument and resort to non-basketball conversation to emphasize Kobe's greatness. It's around this point some fakkit like @Sccit will begin to talk about how "LeBron is the least respected superstar of all time," or how "Kobe would never let the league get stolen from him the way Curry did to LeBron," while failing to ignore that:
A.) Arguably no superstar has been physically bytched more than Kobe in his whole career. Between Shaq, Raja Bell, Reggie Miller, Chris Childs, so on and so forth. Also constantly caught crying on the bench during losses AND...
B.) LeBron took the league from Kobe in his god damn prime.
Actually, the irony in it all is that the "manufactured superstar" label often bestowed upon LeBron fits Kobe much better. No other superstar has gotten away with being given labels they don't deserve simply off of "reputation" the way Kobe has.
Hopefully this conclude this thread before it even gets off the ground.
30k points(3rd all time)
3rd all time in 40 point games
3rd all time in 50 point games
2nd all time in 60 point games
fukk your analytic stats. The fact that according to analytics he isn't a top 10 player yet he's been more successful than all but 4-5 guys all time let me know that analytics don't mean shyt.
You a battyboi too.
GREG ANTHONY WAS SAYIN THE MORE ADVANCED ANALYTCS GET, THE MORE THEY PROVE KOBES GREATNESS AKA KOBE IS TOO ADVANCED FOR ANALYTICS- THE SHIIT HE DOES CANT BE QUANTIFIED BECAUSE SOME OF THE STUFF HE DOES LITTERALLY SUPERSEDES NUMBERS......HOW CAN YOU QUANTIFY STUFF SUCH AS ENERGY, SOUL, WILL, MOTIVATION, INSTINCT? U CANT. ONLY GODLESS INDIVIDUALS AND SQUARES WITOUT SOUL CAN PUT NUMBERS ON THINGS THAT ARENT EVEN EXPLAINABLE IN WORDS. AND ONCE AGAIN, IF WE GO BY ANALYTICS, STEPH CURRY IS BETTER THAN MJ IN MANY MEASURES. THAT SHIIT MIGHT HELP GM'S ASSESS STUFF LIKE WHERES THE BEST SPOT ON THE FLOOR FOR A PLAYER TO SHOOT FROM, OR WHERE A PLAYER SHOULD BE MOST GUARDED.....BUT LIKE MANY OF THE ALL TIME GREATS SAY, A GOOD PORTION OF ANALYTICS IS JUS A WAY FOR NERDS TO FEEL INVOLVEMENT IN THE GAME BY TRYING TO QUANTIFY EVERY SINGLE MEASURE OF IT.
360Waves
2 girls and they get along like I'm Lou Will
This just in. Volume scorers who take lots of shots score lots of points.
LeBron got 1 60 point game to his name and it was on less shots and astronomically better efficiency than what Kobe routinely took to simply get 40.
This just in, Kobe's career scoring averages when he takes at least 30 FGA in a game? 41.6ppg on 45percent shooting.
Lebron? 41.2 on 47 percent shooting.
And if we were to compare their 40+ point games in which less than 30 FGs were taken, well do I even need to show you the #s? We know LeBron is the king of efficiency so Kobe's getting slaughtered there.
This is with LeBron have considerably less 30 FGA games. In other words, when LeBron wants to get on his Kobe, he's better at it than Kobe is.
Last edited:
This
LeBron got 1 60 point game to his name and it was on less shots and astronomically better efficiency than what Kobe routinely took to simply get 40.
This just in, Kobe's career scoring averages when he takes at least 30 FGA in a game? 41.6ppg on 45percent shooting.
Lebron? 41.2 on 47 percent shooting.
And if we were to compare their 40+ point games in which less than 30 FGs were taken, well do I even need to show you the #s? We know LeBron is the king of efficiency so Kobe's getting slaughtered there.
This is with LeBron have considerably less 30 FGA games. In other words, when LeBron wants to get on his Kobe, he's better at it than Kobe is.
LEBRON DOESNT HAVE THE BALLS TO TAKE THE AMOUNT OF SHOTS HIS TEAM NEEDS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL, NOR DOES HE HAVE THE OFFENSIVE REPERTOIRE, THE RANGE, THE FOOTWORK, THE BALL HANDLING SKILLS....HOW DO U QUANTIFY THAT, NERD? HOW DO U PUT HEART INTO NUMBERS?? FALL BACK, THE LEBRON GROUPIES STAY EXPOSIN THEMSELVES AS:
360Waves
2 girls and they get along like I'm Lou Will
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
SO WHO'S USIN NARRATIVES NOW? I SHIIT ALL OVER YOU AND U JUS RESORT TO "LOL SCCIT DONT KNOW SHIIT!!" AS A COP-OUT.
FALL BACK NERD, EVERY BASKETBALL PURIST WHO'S ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME KNOWS THAT CATS WHO USE NUMBERS AS A PRIMARY MEASURE OF GREATNESS GOT THE GAME FUCCED UP. YOU DOIN A GOOD JOB OF KEEPIN THAT STIGMA ALIVE FAM.