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

[TheNig]

but fact is I support analytics but not as the end all be all to statistics and player evaluation.

Sam Presti and RC Buford have said this plenty of times.

 

[TheNig]

I don't believe those ratings = a definitive list of best players ever.

But you believe them enough to validate that Kobe isn't as great as he is perceived to be?

Like @Newzz said, you're using them when it is convenient to your argument.

 

[Remote]

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?

I think all stats are to be taken with a grain of salt and with context.

Is Horace Grant a better player than Karl Malone?

No.

Has Horace Grant had a season where he was perhaps more effective and integral to winning than Karl Malone?

Possibly.

If that doesn't jive with conventional wisdom, tough titty.

 

[Remote]

But you believe them enough to validate that Kobe isn't as great as he is perceived to be?

Like @Newzz said, you're using them when it is convenient to your argument.

My argument isn't that Kobe is not a great player.

My argument would be that he's probably not as great as people think.

Why is this so controversial?

 

[mbewane]

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.

They don't. That's the main problem with ALL statistics : that their very purpose is to simplify something complex into numbers, as those are becoming the alpha and omega of everything. The whole "Men lie, women lie, numbers don't" is bs based on the belief that EVERYTHING can be broken down into numbers, but reality is more complex than that.

Statistics sole purpose is to give indications of a much more complex reality (see the GDP) but they are only conventions made by statisticians, who have to choose to take into account this factor but not that one. And their choice of things to take into account is biased because they will naturally choose what can be measured by numbers (points, FG%, rebounds, etc) but not the rest (hustle, altering shots, playing the passing lanes, setting blocks, mentally imposing oneself on another player, showing leadership, etc).

 

[Dwight Howard]

 

[Remote]

They don't. That's the main problem with ALL statistics : that their very purpose is to simplify something complex into numbers, as those are becoming the alpha and omega of everything. The whole "Men lie, women lie, numbers don't" is bs based on the belief that EVERYTHING can be broken down into numbers, but reality is more complex than that.

Statistics sole purpose is to give indications of a much more complex reality (see the GDP) but they are only conventions made by statisticians, who have to choose to take into account this factor but not that one. And their choice of things to take into account is biased because they will naturally choose what can be measured by numbers (points, FG%, rebounds, etc) but not the rest (hustle, altering shots, playing the passing lanes, setting blocks, mentally imposing oneself on another player, showing leadership, etc).

Patently false.
There are statistics that adjust and normalize for changes in eras and style of play.

This is indicated in the OP point about the differences in shooting percentages 40 years ago compared to now.

But none of you seem to have read the article.

True, baseball is FAR more ahead in this area than basketball, but that's because statistical analysis has been pioneered there first.

You can't claim statistical analysis is garbage and then cite shyt like points and rebounds and assists because points/rebounds/assists are statistics.

 

[mbewane]

Patently false.
There are statistics that adjust and normalize for changes in eras and style of play.

This is indicated in the OP point about the differences in shooting percentages 40 years ago compared to now.

But none of you seem to have read the article.

True, baseball is FAR more ahead in this area than basketball, but that's because statistical analysis has been pioneered there first.

You can't claim statistical analysis is garbage and then cite shyt like points and rebounds and assists because points/rebounds/assists are statistics.

Lol I don't care for baseball breh. And I did read the article.

And you didn't read what I wrote, which is that statistics are an indication of something but are nothing more than an attempt to reduce something complex into mere numbers. So I'm not saying that statistical analysis is garbage per se but this attempt to provide a supposed "complete" analysis of a player's game totally bypasses things that cannot be measured.

How do you measure the value of a good pick? Of a player intimidating another? Of playing the passing lane, which does not result in a turnover but forces a bad shot at the 23 second mark? Of quickly advancing the ball without getting the assist? Most of those intangibles get thrown out the window with this kind of statistics.

 

[CantStop]

it hurts you stat geeks so much that Kobe gets this love.

 

[Newzz]

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?

Exactly. That's 100% what I was saying.


I don't care what "efficiency" or other metrics they want to use.....no way in the world was Chauncey Billups 2008 season greater than any season Tim Duncan ever had. No way was Horace Grant's 1992 season greater than ANY season Kobe Bryant ever had. That's just



There is 0 argument that can be made that David Robinson and Chris Paul are the 2nd and 3rd Greatest Players of All-Time.........0. But, that's what this metric system is telling us

 

[TheNig]

My argument isn't that Kobe is not a great player.

My argument would be that he's probably not as great as people think.

Why is this so controversial?

Becuz when given then WP48 data, you deliberately dismissed it becuz you don't feel it represents who are the best players, but that data says otherwise.

My point isn't your perception of Kobe. I could careless. What stood out to me in your argument against Kobe's greatness is that you have conveniently used them to support it but at the same time you still have a problem with it.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

My argument isn't that Kobe is not a great player.

My argument would be that he's probably not as great as people think.

Why is this so controversial?

Because Kobe stans

 

[Savior]

Articles like the OP are why people shyt on analytics and dismiss it as cac hispter tryhard shyt....yes it obviously has its use but when u cross that line it just makes u look foolish.

 

[TheNig]

Because Kobe stans

If you want ot go ahead and belittle it to that then so be it. I aint gone stop you.

But I'm pretty sure that there's some ridiculous damn ass advanced stat to use against LeBron to explain why he's 2-4 in the Finals and what he could have done better to win those Finals.

 

[Bilz]

nikkas wanna use the stats when they're convenient.


David Robinson is ranked #2 all-time in NBA history........coli favorite Tim Duncan isn't even amongst the Top 10 all-time


Now, if we started a thread which said David Robinson > Tim Duncan, nikkas would give us the dap + undap, negged, reported combo.....but yet they are going by analytics that say that just to hate on Kobe

Is that worse than the commonly used method that suggests Robert Horry is the best player of this era?