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

[Remote]

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.

Not at all.

You guys are taking overall seasons of WP48 and using it to make assumptions about a player's career.

Let's be clear here: no one stat encapsulates any player's career.

However, if WP48 says that Reggie Miller was more efficient over the course of his career than Kobe Bryant, then he probably was.


But that's not necessarily saying Miller has the better career.

And I say probably because the stat isn't the end all, be all. And many metrics are often updated and changed as better ways to gauge actual performance emerge.

Why does this matter then?
Because if you're going to claim that X Player is better than Y player, you can't sit here and say "this guy scored 30 points, and that guy scored 18 points, so Player X is better". Or some other perception based logic like "this player seemed more aggressive" or "that player got in his head"...bullshyt unquantifiable arguments.

You show me where I have said Kobe is worse than Miller or Drexler.

What my view and argument is: stats analysis like this are making is clearer that the true context of Kobe's performance on the court are harsher than the legendary fairy tales the media and fans would have you believe.

And that is hilarious to me.

You can support the idea of stats analysis while acknowledging that more work is to be done.
But that doesn't mean you toss this shyt to the bushes because you don't like the results.

That's what you don't understand.
Or don't like.

 

[TheNig]

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

I don't think anything is worse than that.

 

[Newzz]

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

Who judges off straight ring count and that's all? I could've swore we break it down to #1 option vs #1 option, and then go to the rings.

 

[Bilz]

Who judges off straight ring count and that's all? I could've swore we break it down to #1 option vs #1 option, and then go to the rings.

That way sucks too . But who out there is using win shares exclusively? All stats need context. Whether we are using simple stats like ppg and rings or PER and WS.

 

[MJ Truth]

Do people even WATCH ball anymore? Or is everything determined by numbers?

 

[RedBull]

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.

You're being stubborn.

 

[Newzz]

That way sucks too . But who out there is using win shares exclusively? All stats need context. Whether we are using simple stats like ppg and rings or PER and WS.

@Trip

 

[Remote]

You're being stubborn.

You're trying deflect by addressing my application rather than addressing the merits of the stat itself.

And others are questioning the merits based on "X player couldn't possibly have been more efficient than Y Player"

 

[TheNig]

Let's be clear here: no one stat encapsulates any player's career.

But according to you it can be used to take away from a person's career.

And I say probably because the stat isn't the end all, be all. And many metrics are often updated and changed as better ways to gauge actual performance emerge.

You're backpeddling. Many of us have already said that it is simply a tool. you're the one, not us, treating it as an ultimate guide to a player's legacy.

You show me where I have said Kobe is worse than Miller or Drexler.

I never said that you said tha but don't grasp at traws becuz you certainly implied it and don't give me that ass-u-me bullshyt. Everyone in here knows what you meant.

What my view and argument is: stats analysis like this are making is clearer that the true context of Kobe's performance on the court are harsher than the legendary fairy tales the media and fans would have you believe.

Only becuz it's what you agree with. Only becuz it is convenient for you. When faced with other "facts" about analysis you dismissed it and now that it's working against you, you're trying to "clear up" what it is that you were really saying. Only thing is, I'm not buying it.

You can support the idea of stats analysis while acknowledging that more work is to be done.
But that doesn't mean you toss this shyt to the bushes because you don't like the results.

Of course you can. The last two world champions are a great example of where analysis played a great role in their success. But we also know that you need great players with great mindsets and some luck to make things go your way. We also know that analysis can be a bit deceiving. The Grant/Malone debate is a very good example. But until confronted with this evidence, you're werent singing this particular tune.

 

[RedBull]

You're trying deflect by addressing my application rather than addressing the merits of the stat itself.

And others are questioning the merits based on "X player couldn't possibly have been more efficient than Y Player"

I'm not deflecting, I'm just getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is this, that system tells me than 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.

 

[Remote]

But according to you it can be used to take away from a person's career.



You're backpeddling. Many of us have already said that it is simply a tool. you're the one, not us, treating it as an ultimate guide to a player's legacy.


I never said that you said tha but don't grasp at traws becuz you certainly implied it and don't give me that ass-u-me bullshyt. Everyone in here knows what you meant.

Only becuz it's what you agree with. Only becuz it is convenient for you. When faced with other "facts" about analysis you dismissed it and now that it's working against you, you're trying to "clear up" what it is that you were really saying. Only thing is, I'm not buying it.




Of course you can. The last two world champions are a great example of where analysis played a great role in their success. But we also know that you need great players with great mindsets and some luck to make things go your way. We also know that analysis can be a bit deceiving. The Grant/Malone debate is a very good example. But until confronted with this evidence, you're werent singing this particular tune.

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

 

[Remote]

I'm not deflecting, I'm just getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is this, that system tells me than 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.

I think any players ranked above Lebron in career efficiency are worth looking into.

I don't know what "ride with" means.
Just because a player rates higher than Lebron in efficiency doesn't mean I think they're automatically better.

I'm getting tired of repeating this shyt to you guys CONSTANTLY in this thread.

 

[RedBull]

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

Forget Kobe (no disrespect to Kobe fans at all), can you entertain the possibility that Jordan and Lebron isn't what we built them up to be and Rodman is actually better than we have him credit for? I mean, since this is what the analytics say.

 

[RedBull]

I think any players ranked above Lebron in career efficiency are worth looking into.

I don't know what "ride with" means.
Just because a player rates higher than Lebron in efficiency doesn't mean I think they're automatically better.

I'm getting tired of repeating this shyt to you guys CONSTANTLY in this thread.

You don't know what "ride" means but in the next statement you assume that what I meant. Basically what I'm asking, would you have supported this with the same fevor if this thread was about your favorite player? Whoever that is.

 

[Remote]

Forget Kobe (no disrespect to Kobe fans at all), can you entertain the possibility that Jordan and Lebron isn't what we built them up to be and Rodman is actually better than we have him credit for? I mean, since this is what the analytics say.

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.