Kobe Bryant Is An All Time Great, Unless You Do The Math: VICE

[Newzz]

Maybe it was.
I'm not a slave to thinking that statistical analysis is the end-all, be-all when it comes to examining a player.

But I don't think that opinions based on perception are either.

There's a reason we use both. And the reasonable people understand that we don't automatically dismiss certain evidence simply because it doesn't jive with what we feel.

Going by those stats that are being used to discredit Kobe, you would have to also agree that Shaq's 2001 season where he averaged 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rebs, 3.7 assts, 2.8 blks, and shot 57.3% FG wasn't better than Manu Ginobili's 2007 season where he averaged 16.5 pts, 4.4 rebs, 3.5 assts, and 1.5 stls shooting 46.4% FG because Ginobili's WS/48 numbers are higher

 

[Remote]

Going by those stats that are being used to discredit Kobe, you would have to also agree that Shaq's 2001 season where he averaged 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rebs, 3.7 assts, 2.8 blks, and shot 57.3% FG wasn't better than Manu Ginobili's 2007 season where he averaged 16.5 pts, 4.4 rebs, 3.5 assts, and 1.5 stls shooting 46.4% FG because Ginobili's WS/48 numbers are higher

Lol

 

[Remote]

So @Newzz is gonna shyt on stats by using other stats

 

[Newzz]

So @Newzz is gonna shyt on stats by using other stats

Im using NBA & ABA Single Season Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes | Basketball-Reference.com which have Shaq's 2001 season listed as the 100th best season in NBA history, but has 2007 Ginobili's season ranked higher at 98th all-time best season




Those are the same numbers yall are running with to discredit Kobe, so you can see how ridiculous it looks to actually use that system

 

[Remote]

Im using NBA & ABA Single Season Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes | Basketball-Reference.com which have Shaq's 2001 season listed as the 100th best season in NBA history, but has 2007 Ginobili's season ranked higher at 98th all-time best season




Those are the same numbers yall are running with to discredit Kobe, so you can see how ridiculous it looks to actually use that system

The effectiveness stats are not biased to any one player.

It's rates.
For the 3rd time now: counting stats matter in context. But rate stats matter too.

If your argument is that someone created these stats to discredit Kobe (or any one particular player), then you're being a bit delusional.

 

[Newzz]

The effectiveness stats are not biased to any one player.

It's rates.
For the 3rd time now: counting stats matter in context. But rate stats matter too.

If your argument is that someone created these stats to discredit Kobe (or any one particular player), then you're being a bit delusional.

Im not arguing or debating anything...Im just letting you SEE what else you're opening yourself up too

According to NBA & ABA Single Season Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes | Basketball-Reference.com @Raul, Kobe's greatest season is the 2006 season and to them is only good enough to be ranked the 207th best season in NBA history. In comparision, they have Horace Grant's 1992 season ranked 86 spots higher as the 131st best season in NBA history


Oh yeah, according to those metrics, Horace Grant's 1992 season was > Karl Malone's 1992 season as well

 

[UpAndComing]

LMAO @ the thought of Reggie Miller, Ray Allen and Drexler being better than Kobe.

Articles like this and the numbers they're pulling out diminish the positives of analytics.

 

[Remote]

Im not arguing or debating anything...Im just letting you SEE what else you're opening yourself up too

According to NBA & ABA Single Season Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes | Basketball-Reference.com @Raul, Kobe's greatest season is the 2006 season and to them is only good enough to be ranked the 207th best season in NBA history. In comparision, they have Horace Grant's 1991 season ranked 86 spots higher as the 131st best season in NBA history

All I'm saying is, maybe it was. I don't know.

There are things that equate to winning besides the typical PPG/RPG circle jerk.

I'm open to the reasoning behind the statement that Grant's year was better.

Most of you are closed minded about it.

 

[RedBull]

All I'm saying is, maybe it was. I don't know.

There are things that equate to winning besides the typical PPG/RPG circle jerk.

I'm open to the reasoning behind the statement that Grant's year was better.

Most of you are closed minded about it.

He really made you back down and you really didn't address his retorts effectively. I'm not coming down on you, I'm just saying that @Newzz kind of shut this down in my opinion.

 

[mastermind]

I like basketball advanced metrics, and I do feel it gives us some great insight into the game.

But this shyt:

Oh yeah, according to those metrics, Horace Grant's 1992 season was > Karl Malone's 1992 season as well

When people try to hoist it up as the end all be all, thats when I have a problem. Advanced metrics in basketball has some ways to go.

 

[Remote]

He really made you back down and you really didn't address his retorts effectively. I'm not coming down on you, I'm just saying that @Newzz kind of shut this down in my opinion.

No he didn't.
All he's doing is saying "this player's rate stats are seemingly better than THAT player's rate stats" and then insinuating that the stats MUST BE WRONG because Player A can't possibly be better than Player B.

But why not? Because it doesn't jive with conventional wisdom?

Breh anybody can see through that flawed logic.

 

[Newzz]

All I'm saying is, maybe it was. I don't know.

There are things that equate to winning besides the typical PPG/RPG circle jerk.

I'm open to the reasoning behind the statement that Grant's year was better.

Most of you are closed minded about it.

You're also open to the opinion of David Robinson & Chris Paul being the 2nd and 3rd greatest players in NBA history when you are forced to go by those metrics


If you wanna use them, fine..it's your choice.


But for me? Any list that starts off that way is automatically status to me

 

[Remote]

Well, anybody with a brain could see through it ...

 

[CACarot]

Interesting article but I'm not sure these statistics are great indicators of players influence and value. I'm not a statistician but I don't believe stats can tell you the complete story as their are too many variables to consider that can change them. For example they compare Kobe to Clyde and Wins added and efficiency but how do you account for changes in the style of play in the league from different eras, the pace, value of team roster, rule changes, Opposing team defensive schemes for said player, effects of shorten seasons, etc etc list can go on.

 

[RedBull]

No he didn't.
All he's doing is saying "this player's rate stats are seemingly better than THAT player's rate stats" and then insinuating that the stats MUST BE WRONG because Player A can't possibly be better than Player B.

But why not? Because it doesn't jive with conventional wisdom?

Breh anybody can see through that flawed logic.

Well I didn't get that he was saying, "the stats must be wrong". I felt that he was stating the obvious, player A wasn't better than player B regardless of the rating system. For instance, Horace Grant never had a season better or effective than Malone, especially in 1992, however, that analytical system did. Do you agree that Horace did? Just look at the players ranked above King James, can you really ride with this?