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

[RedBull]

It seems to me the analytics don't say anything about better. But about efficiency.

Could I entertain the idea that while on the court during a given season or career that metrics say Dennis Rodman was more efficient than Michael Jordan?

Sure I could.
Doesn't mean I think Rodman is better than Jordan.

They're different players bringing seemingly different value to the game.

It's possible that this is being looked at in terms of WAR. Which is to say, for example, that it may be that Rodman was so much more efficient relative to his peers (perhaps by position) than Jordan was to his peers (perhaps by position).

I don't understand why you guys can't even entertain these ideas.

They seem very logical.

I can entertain it, but that's where it stops. Entertaining and belief are totally different. WAR, no matter how many numbers get punched, can't convince or shouldn't convince anyone with a sane mind that Rodman was more efficient than Jordan (regardless of position). To me, this is logical.

 

[Maluma]

ITT: Kobe stans upset that their hero was essentially the Derek Jeter of the NBA, not the Barry Bonds or even the Alex Rodriguez of it.

 

[TheNig]

I'm not deflecting, I'm just getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is this, that system tells me that Rodman had more of an effect on winning that Jordan, and I cant agree, my eyes cant agree, my conscious can't agree, and anyone who saw them both play really can't agree either. You're posing a good argument, however, the bottom line for you is what? I asked earlier, can you ride with the players ranked above Lebron in this analysis? You never answered, you actually deflected.

And here's the thing about the Rodman/Jordan debate...

Outside of rebounding and defense, what did Rodman really do? Nothing that shows up on the stat sheet. Everything else would be considered "intanglible" but you can't put a number on that. And earlier he @Raul completely dismissed things that are considered "unquantifiable" .

That would be fine if you're 100% ground into analytics but he's proven that he's not and is now backpeddling on his previous arguments.

 

[TheNig]

Not back pedaling.
I'm refining my answer.

You won't even entertain the possibility that Kobe isn't what you've built him up to be in your mind.

But that's cool

Of course I wont becuz he's my favorite player of all time behind Dream. But I also understand that he's not without fault.

Your initial argument was that he wasn't as good as he is perceived and that analytics back that up and that Clyde and Reggie are better.

You were then given other "stats" that said who the 5 best players were according to analytics and you conveniently dismissed it. So yeah, I catergorized it as back pedaling.

 

[OnlyInCalifornia]

This is the same problem I have with fantasy football people....

Doing this 'just by the numbers' doesn't tell the story of everything. It also isn't 'unbias' as it doesn't factor in everything that takes place. Simple math and adding up a bunch of numbers only tells half the story.

This goes for Lebron, Jordan, Magic Johnson, Dwight Howard, etc.....

Lebron had one of the worst shooting performances in nba finals history for an elite, HOF player but those raw numbers you look back on after the fact don't tell you the other factors on why he did. Such as not having enough help, being injured and fatiqued, etc.

Rodman's on court efficiency has to do with being on a team with Jordan and him having these players mentally tough. It doesn't include having a coach like Phil Jackson calling the right plays, subbing right, and getting the team prepared with game tape like few others can...the "analytics" cannot calculate that and NEVER will. Watch games, stop being fantasy basketball fans.

 

[Remote]

And here's the thing about the Rodman/Jordan debate...

Outside of rebounding and defense, what did Rodman really do? Nothing that shows up on the stat sheet. Everything else would be considered "intanglible" but you can't put a number on that. And earlier he @Raul completely dismissed things that are considered "unquantifiable" .

That would be fine if you're 100% ground into analytics but he's proven that he's not and is now backpeddling on his previous arguments.

The part about not being 100% behind blind stats analysis was in contrast to being 100% behind watching games and using that as a baseline.

That said, unquantifiable shyt like "his presence on the court" or "asserting his dominance" are still irrelevant.

 

[Remote]

Of course I wont becuz he's my favorite player of all time behind Dream. But I also understand that he's not without fault.

Your initial argument was that he wasn't as good as he is perceived and that analytics back that up and that Clyde and Reggie are better.

You were then given other "stats" that said who the 5 best players were according to analytics and you conveniently dismissed it. So yeah, I catergorized it as back pedaling.

I ignored it because it's irrelevant.

There are several posts I made about efficiency. Read them

 

[Reid2Achieve]

Once again, NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes | Basketball-Reference.com

According to WS per 48, the Top 5 players of all-time are:

1. Michael Jordan
2. David Robinson
3. Chris Paul
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Neil Johnston

On that list.....James Harden is ranked the 19th best player of all-time, while Kobe is 50th


Get these analytics the hell outta here

The list has James Harden ahead of HOFers like Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Kevin McHale, Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Scottie Pippen, etc.


The list has Chris Paul as the 3rd best player of ALL-TIME and I'm supposed to take it seriously?!!!?

Neil Johnston da GAWD

 

[TheNig]

The part about not being 100% behind blind stats analysis was in contrast to being 100% behind watching games and using that as a baseline.

That said, unquantifiable shyt like "his presence on the court" or "asserting his dominance" are still irrelevant.

So who are to get mad when someone throws analytics all the way in the bushes?

I ignored it because it's irrelevant.

There are several posts I made about efficiency. Read them

It's irrelevant for you becuz you don't agree with it. Simple as that.

 

[Rollo Goodlove]

How to be a Kobe hater:
1. Know nothing about the game of basketball

2. Ignore all his good stats and accomplishments and use his bad and irrelevant stats

 

[Newzz]

Neil Johnston da GAWD

Top 5 Dead Or Alive

 

[ThaRealness]

Wins produced is a very controversial stat, even respected members of the cacalytics community like Neil Paine have a problem with it (check comments, Mark Cuban also makes an appearance since according to wins produced Dirk was the 5th best player vs Miami and the 2nd best heading into the finals). It makes the assumption that a player will shoot at that efficiency regardless of how much their role or volume changes and it overvalues rebounds, which is why this occurred:



Context matters and Dave Berri is really just an economist that pretends to understand sports. That said, Jordan vs Kobe should never be a debate, and neither should Kobe's place as an all-timer.

That's some unintelligent shyt right there. I mean we know high volume scorers are likely to draw double teams, which means their percentages will dip. Plus they having the effect of drawing attention away from 2nd and third option scorers. You got a gang of ivy league grads, and this is the best they can come up with?

 

[ThaRealness]

Nerds gon nerd

 

[Remote]

So who are to get mad when someone throws analytics all the way in the bushes?



It's irrelevant for you becuz you don't agree with it. Simple as that.

I'm not mad about anything.
Why are you mad that statistical analysis rates your beloved heroes in a less flattering light?

 

[Trip]

All it is is connecting shooting efficiency, rebounding, turnovers and defense. Those 4 categories(not weighted evenly) are what win games.