Kobe vs Lebron: Who is the better player?

[valade16]

Only if those stats provide meaningful information, which I've been arguing this entire time that most of them do not, particularly advanced analytics. At the end of the day we're left with their peers picking kobe, the advanced analytics pointing to LBJ and kobe having 2 more titles despite having a tougher road to the title. That should lead people to wonder whether the advanced analytics are measuring meaningful information. That is, the advanced analytics do not accord with what their peers think nor do they accord with who has won more titles...something doesn't quite add up and it's pretty clear that its the advanced analytics.

I see your problem, you assume that rings somehow provide meaningful information about an individual as opposed to the team. You are in a catch-22, you say that advanced analytics don't measure meaningful information because they aren't coinciding with who wins the title the most, but titles don't measure meaningful individual information because they don't coincide with who is the better individual player. Yes, even amongst stars.

Some people with more titles are better than others, some people with less are better. Some people with advanced stats are better, some with advanced stats are worse. I agree, context is everything. But I am failing to see a context that demonstrates Kobe > LeBron (though I do think, like Ewing, that it's closer than an absolute landslide).

I think he means that the shaq who played with LBJ was old. Wade was pretty close to his prime though when he played with LBJ. Wade was widely recognized as the 3rd best player in the league when he and LBJ teamed up. Wade's numbers decreased when he was playing with LBJ, but that is to a large extent because LBJ has typically turned superstars into glorified role players, which has always been my primary critique of LBJ. Doesn't show up in his own numbers, but it shows up in his superstar teammates' numbers...and it's not conducive to winning.

Other than the 3 titles and 8 straight Finals appearances you mean?

[Big Moves03]

Idk what you are talking about. MJ the Goat drafted Kwame Brown and look at the HOF career he had.

Yeah, but these aren't simply ex-players who are picking kobe. It's their contemporaries who played with both and it's their teammates. Players generally know who the best players on the floor are, as do your teammates. It's elite defenders who guarded both who are picking kobe. Wade, bosh, and Kyrie are picking kobe. Generally, the employees at a given work place know who the best employee is. These endorsements amount to letter of recommendations. By dismissing them, we are essentially saying, "nah, the people who went to work with these guys day in and day out don't know what they're talking". Generally, for assessment, those who work most closely with you (regardless of the field) know your abilities best and can provide the best assessment out there.

[Big Moves03]

Let's use the Dragon Balls and wish that Kobe and Lebron swapped situations. Lebron gets drafted to the Lakers forming a starting 5 of

Shaq
Campbell
Lebron
Jones
Van Exel

How do you think that team would do and how do you think Lebron would. Now same for Kobe.
Ilgauskas
Bozer
Miles
Davis
Kobe

It's always been my opinion that if LBJ played alongside shaq one of two things would've happened: 1) those laker teams don't win titles or 2) LBJ doesn't dominate the ball (which is likely what would've happened), those teams win, but he doesn't put up numbers that would get him consideration for being a top 10 player.

[Big Moves03]

I dont know but I think we are forgetting that there was a debate during those back to back for Pau Gasol to be the Finals MVP. Idk I might be crazy.

The debate was in regards to 2010 and it was because kobe had a poor shooting game in game 7 and it was mostly driven by people who hated kobe (of which there were plenty and still are). However, finals MVP doesn't really mean all that much in terms of whether a player is a superstar. Iggy won finals MVP and he was certainly not a superstar nor was he close to being one (at any point in his career).

[Big Moves03]

I dont know what qualifies as raw stats but just in case let me know if something like this works ok.
https://www.landofbasketball.com/pla...bron_james.htm

There is 50 categories there with Lebron career not being over yet. So far if this qualifies as "raw stats" Lebron got Kobe 35 to 15.

nope, this ignores context completely. For instance, LBJ technically averaged more pts per game, suggesting he was the better scorer, which he clearly was not. Anyone looking at the context would know that kobe came off the bench his first 2.5 seasons because he was in a championship caliber team then his last 2 seasons he was a shell of the player he used to be because of the achilles injury. When looking at their peak 10 seasons of scoring (a decade of basketball) kobe had a higher average in 8 of them (and some are considerably higher). Even this ignores that kobe had to share the ball with shaq for all of his youth and played in a restrictive system, whereas LBJ has always had free reigns to do whatever he wanted. That is, despite that, Kobe was still a considerably better scorer. We can break apart most stats like this as well. None of the stats matter if context isn't interpreted correctly.

[Big Moves03]

Well obviously he didn't enjoy it because he ran Shaq out of town. Though I agree with your overall point on LeBron forcing everyone to play LeBron ball.

This is false narrative. They both disliked each other and neither wanted to play with the other. The lakers had to pick between one or the other and when shaq saw that the lakers weren't going to let kobe walk (which is what the alternative was) it was shaq who demanded a trade and did so publicly.

[valade16]

This is false narrative. They both disliked each other and neither wanted to play with the other. The lakers had to pick between one or the other and when shaq saw that the lakers weren't going to let kobe walk (which is what the alternative was) it was shaq who demanded a trade and did so publicly.

There's nothing false about the narrative. Kobe did not want to play with Shaq. Whether Shaq wanted to play with Kobe is irrelevant to the point Ewing was trying to make: that Kobe is more able to fit around other star players. Obviously, no he was not able to fit around Shaq for any prolonged length of time. .

[Big Moves03]

I see your problem, you assume that rings somehow provide meaningful information about an individual as opposed to the team. You are in a catch-22, you say that advanced analytics don't measure meaningful information because they aren't coinciding with who wins the title the most, but titles don't measure meaningful individual information because they don't coincide with who is the better individual player. Yes, even amongst stars.

Some people with more titles are better than others, some people with less are better. Some people with advanced stats are better, some with advanced stats are worse. I agree, context is everything. But I am failing to see a context that demonstrates Kobe > LeBron (though I do think, like Ewing, that it's closer than an absolute landslide).



Other than the 3 titles and 8 straight Finals appearances you mean?

Well, that's a point we disagree on then about the extent to which titles provide meaningful information. Personally, I am of the opinion that truly elite players can put up incredible numbers if they want to, but that isn't conducive to winning a championship so most of these players learn to play with their teammates and as a result sacrifice offensive output. If we look back to the 1980s we can see the team with one of the 5 best players in the league usually wins the title (and it's usually the team with the best player in the league). There are some rare occurrences where this hasn't happened, such as in 1999 when the spurs won (because Duncan probably wasn't a top 5 player yet); the 2004 when the pistons had a super stacked team with many all-star caliber players; and the 2011 mavs (although this one is debatable because Dirk might have been a top 5 player). That is, you can statistically model who is likely to win a title any given year just by looking at who has the best player in the league an you would be right at an alarming high rate.

As for my comment about LBJ's play being conducive to winning, I frankly do not consider the 8 consecutive finals appearances much of an accomplishment because he was playing in the east. The massive majority of those finals were not competitive (and were similar to the first round of the playoffs when the 1 seed plays the 8 seed), indicating that the team wasn't really on par with a championship caliber team, since they put up little resistance. He did win 3 titles, but again, he titled hopped to do it, so to me, that diminishes their worth a little bit. Playing a style that isn't conducive to winning can certainly be offset if you artificially form an all-star caliber starting lineup (there's the context popping up again).

[Big Moves03]

There's nothing false about the narrative. Kobe did not want to play with Shaq. Whether Shaq wanted to play with Kobe is irrelevant to the point Ewing was trying to make: that Kobe is more able to fit around other star players. Obviously, no he was not able to fit around Shaq for any prolonged length of time. .

They played for like 8 seasons together lol...and won the last 3-peat the NBA has seen and made 4 finals appearances...and were contenders for just about all of those 8 years. Most consider them the best duo in NBA history. Clearly they were not only able to co-exist, they excelled at it and did it for almost a decade.

[valade16]

nope, this ignores context completely. For instance, LBJ technically averaged more pts per game, suggesting he was the better scorer, which he clearly was not. Anyone looking at the context would know that kobe came off the bench his first 2.5 seasons because he was in a championship caliber team then his last 2 seasons he was a shell of the player he used to be because of the achilles injury. When looking at their peak 10 seasons of scoring (a decade of basketball) kobe had a higher average in 8 of them (and some are considerably higher). Even this ignores that kobe had to share the ball with shaq for all of his youth and played in a restrictive system, whereas LBJ has always had free reigns to do whatever he wanted. That is, despite that, Kobe was still a considerably better scorer. We can break apart most stats like this as well. None of the stats matter if context isn't interpreted correctly.

You keep saying better when you mean more prolific scorer. Despite your disdain for advanced metrics, this is one instance where they can greatly aid our understanding of who a better scorer is. For one, PPG is a simplistic measurement that doesn't take into account a whole host of factors that advanced stats do.

I suggest looking at points per 100 possessions, as this normalizes for the pace of the era/games/etc. I also suggest looking at TS%, as that can tell you a scorers efficiency.

[valade16]

They played for like 8 seasons together lol...and won the last 3-peat the NBA has seen...and were contenders for just about all of those 8 years. Most consider them the best duo in NBA history. Clearly they were not only able to co-exist, they excelled at it and did it for almost a decade.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. First you say we shouldn't count Kobe's early year's because he was a bench player and then say he and Shaq played together for 8 years. OK, but not as Shaq and Kobe. As Shaq and bench Kobe. Obviously, 25 PPG Kobe was a different person than bench young Kobe, otherwise why not include both their stats in PPG? Point is, the moment Kobe became a top level player, there was friction which caused them to separate. Kobe was a big part of that, he did not want to play with Shaq anymore unless he was the man, which doesn't sound like someone who was able to accommodate to another star player.

[valade16]

Well, that's a point we disagree on then about the extent to which titles provide meaningful information. Personally, I am of the opinion that truly elite players can put up incredible numbers if they want to, but that isn't conducive to winning a championship so most of these players learn to play with their teammates and as a result sacrifice offensive output. If we look back to the 1980s we can see the team with one of the 5 best players in the league usually wins the title (and it's usually the team with the best player in the league). There are some rare occurrences where this hasn't happened, such as in 1999 when the spurs won (because Duncan probably wasn't a top 5 player yet); the 2004 when the pistons had a super stacked team with many all-star caliber players; and the 2011 mavs (although this one is debatable because Dirk might have been a top 5 player). That is, you can statistically model who is likely to win a title any given year just by looking at who has the best player in the league an you would be right at an alarming high rate.

As for my comment about LBJ's play being conducive to winning, I frankly do not consider the 8 consecutive finals appearances much of an accomplishment because he was playing in the east. The massive majority of those finals were not competitive (and were similar to the first round of the playoffs when the 1 seed plays the 8 seed), indicating that the team wasn't really on par with a championship caliber team, since they put up little resistance. He did win 3 titles, but again, he titled hopped to do it, so to me, that diminishes their worth a little bit. Playing a style that isn't conducive to winning can certainly be offset if you artificially form an all-star caliber starting lineup (there's the context popping up again).

An interesting observation in that it's completely incorrect. Perhaps you shouldn't have used the 80's as your example because the best player, MJ, never really got close to a title during that period. What is your explanation there? That MJ wasn't the best player in say 89 when his Bulls lost to the Pistons? By your own logic, IT was the best player in the league.

As for your trivialization of Bron's 8 finals. That's fine. You can have that opinion. Personally, I don't think Kobe's first 3 rings much of an accomplishment because they were next to Shaq. And yes, LeBron artificially formed all-star caliber teams, but contextually, Kobe played on title teams that had more surrounding talent than any of LeBron's. So your context is really bias masquerading as context.

[jericho]

Yeah, but these aren't simply ex-players who are picking kobe. It's their contemporaries who played with both and it's their teammates. Players generally know who the best players on the floor are, as do your teammates. It's elite defenders who guarded both who are picking kobe. Wade, bosh, and Kyrie are picking kobe. Generally, the employees at a given work place know who the best employee is. These endorsements amount to letter of recommendations. By dismissing them, we are essentially saying, "nah, the people who went to work with these guys day in and day out don't know what they're talking". Generally, for assessment, those who work most closely with you (regardless of the field) know your abilities best and can provide the best assessment out there.

Sorry MJ is the GOAT your argument is invalid

[Big Moves03]

You keep saying better when you mean more prolific scorer. Despite your disdain for advanced metrics, this is one instance where they can greatly aid our understanding of who a better scorer is. For one, PPG is a simplistic measurement that doesn't take into account a whole host of factors that advanced stats do.

I suggest looking at points per 100 possessions, as this normalizes for the pace of the era/games/etc. I also suggest looking at TS%, as that can tell you a scorers efficiency.

The problem with looking at any statistics for LBJ (advanced or otherwise) is that he's arguably dominated the ball more than any other player in NBA history. The entire system is LBJ handling the ball. Obviously that's a credit to his ability and decision making (no argument on that front), but that's going to produce incredibly inflated numbers. James Harden is a perfect example of this and what he's doing is merely an extension of what LBJ has done his entire career (just not to the same extreme). I don't like TS% because the label is awfully misleading. It doesn't account for end of quarter shots that are plus 40-feet. These type of shots are percentage busters, because they are almost never going to go in, but there is only a benefit in taking them and no draw back. These count as misses nonetheless. Players like kobe would also throw those up without hesitation, whereas LBJ rarely does. The difference in their shooting percentages amounts to a little less than 1 made shot per game and when these type of shots get factored in, it really makes their efficiency numbers far closer than most would realize.

Additionally, Kobe's numbers need to be adjusted for playing alongside Shaq for all of his athletic prime, whereas LBJ has never had that issue. This is actually my only real critique of LBJ. As far as I can tell, his style of play forces other stars to become glorified role players, whereas Kobe and many other greats sacrificed their numbers a bit and formed a synergy with their star teammates. Watching them play, with LBJ it's always seemed to me that it's LBJ OR Wade OR Bosh, LBJ OR Kyrie OR Love...with kobe, it was always AND. Kobe AND Shaq, Kobe AND Pau. I think the former leads to better numbers, but the latter is more conducive to winning.

[jericho]

It's always been my opinion that if LBJ played alongside shaq one of two things would've happened: 1) those laker teams don't win titles or 2) LBJ doesn't dominate the ball (which is likely what would've happened), those teams win, but he doesn't put up numbers that would get him consideration for being a top 10 player.

Here we are playing with what ifs. And you are trying to make it fit your narrative when everybody else with agree with the opposite being true. When did we ever get to see Lebron play with a HOF coach? Oh and just add Shaq to that. There wouldn't be a need to trade Eddie Jones from that team. Who was a good SG at the time.