Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 392 of 452 FirstFirst ... 292342382390391392393394402442 ... LastLast
Results 5,866 to 5,880 of 6768
  1. #5866
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    This isn't ignoring the point, I have long stated that is not a good way to look at statistics and use context when evaluating. I also have seen your miscalculations before and don't necessarily trust your breakdowns.

    I was making a specific point about Kobe not being able to lead a team as the man and his efficiency dropping off in 03/04 and you have completely tried to twist the argument away from that context so weirdly look at career stats/metrics without context. This has always been true and we have tracking data to see if players were to be holding the ball extra and so on in this manner too. Now it wasn't around back for Kobe of course but I am not even denying some basics you say here it just adds to what I brought up about how efficiency matters. You seem to be backing up my point just ranting in a defensive manner to defend Kobe's inefficiency while acknowledging now it obviously matters.

    This is why he wasn't getting credit back then in the same way is he had never proven capable of being that guy and the team stopped winning/he dropped off in efficiency/specific games like the one I covered were big in series result and so on. The context at the time is why as I have been saying it wasn't peak Kobe yet in 01 and he hadn't been that 1st option getting full attention from the defense as it was Shaq and so on. When he started to try being that guy in 03/04 his efficiency fell off and they lost against SA/Det in part because he was trying to be the man but was not ready/able yet.
    yes, but my point was that this drop off in efficiency between when shaq was the best player and when Kobe was amounts to a trivial difference in terms of how it actually impacts the game. I'm not saying missed shots and turnovers don't matter, I'm saying that the difference between the two comparisons you're making isn't a notable difference that is typically going to lead to these massive differences.

  2. #5867
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Another factor to consider when looking at something like efficiency and saying if Player X had played more efficiently his team would've won, is that missed shots and turnovers are naturally correlated with winning and losing (never said they weren't), in that the team that loses will typically end up missing more shots and turning the ball over more than the team that wins. The problem with saying the issue with a given player is his efficiency, is that there is often a reason for those missed shots and those turnovers, which is that the defense is stopping not just that player, but typically the entire team.

    I certainly don't think that if Kobe would've been more efficient and passed it to his teammates more so that they could take those shots that they would've won the series against Detroit. The lakers had a lot of issues that year and there were a ton of chemistry issues (Kobe and shaq were not getting along, shaq was out of shape and mad at the laker organization, the veterans on the team were not happy with Phil for playing Payton and Malone over them, and Payton didn't really fit with that team). I watched everyone of those games against the pistons in 04 and I remember Detroit's defense being stifling and many offensive possessions simply leading nowhere. In a lot of those cases, the ball simply ended up back in Kobe's hands late in the clock and he had to take a shot. If he instead he gave it to one of his teammates to take that shot, do I think they would've won? No, they likely would've missed more of those than Kobe did. That laker team also had a ton of injuries and the lakers were forced to play guys who wouldn't normally crack the rotation significant minutes in crucial games (e.g., Slava Medvedenko). That's not to say that Kobe couldn't have played a better series and I think he learned a lot from that series. My point though is that there was a reason why those shots were so tough and it wasn't simply because Kobe was deciding to take tough shots (that was part of it, but there were various other elements that contributed to this occurring).
    Kobe ORTG 103
    Shaq ORTG 117

    Kobe ORTG 90
    Shaq ORTG 111


    First one is SA series and second one is Detroit series. They should have done more to play through Shaq still at the time and Kobe should have been more of a team player all around instead of forcing himself with so much volume inefficiently. The defenses were good but they understood how Kobe was playing and let him be the lead guy while Shaq was just efficient 2nd option now off them and they didn't need to shift the entire defense in nearly the same ways to stop him regularly anymore. Shaq didn't just drop off a cliff, what happened is the dynamic changed where Kobe tried becoming that lead guy when it still should have gone through Shaq a bit more still. People at the time were questioning if Kobe could win one without Shaq due to this and like I have said before it is why many see the two later titles in higher regard as they think he was actually a better player then too than he was earlier on.

  3. #5868
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    yes, but my point was that this drop off in efficiency between when shaq was the best player and when Kobe was amounts to a trivial difference in terms of how it actually impacts the game. I'm not saying missed shots and turnovers don't matter, I'm saying that the difference between the two comparisons you're making isn't a notable difference that is typically going to lead to these massive differences.
    Not at all and I showed crucial game where his inefficiency in a close loss could have been the difference. They went from a 3 peat team to a team that lost back to back years then broke up due to dysfunction as Kobe became the lead guy. Then Shaq won with young Wade in 06.

  4. #5869
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Another factor to consider when looking at something like efficiency and saying if Player X had played more efficiently his team would've won, is that missed shots and turnovers are naturally correlated with winning and losing (never said they weren't), in that the team that loses will typically end up missing more shots and turning the ball over more than the team that wins. The problem with saying the issue with a given player is his efficiency, is that there is often a reason for those missed shots and those turnovers, which is that the defense is stopping not just that player, but typically the entire team.

    I certainly don't think that if Kobe would've been more efficient and passed it to his teammates more so that they could take those shots that they would've won the series against Detroit. The lakers had a lot of issues that year and there were a ton of chemistry issues (Kobe and shaq were not getting along, shaq was out of shape and mad at the laker organization, the veterans on the team were not happy with Phil for playing Payton and Malone over them, and Payton didn't really fit with that team). I watched everyone of those games against the pistons in 04 and I remember Detroit's defense being stifling and many offensive possessions simply leading nowhere. In a lot of those cases, the ball simply ended up back in Kobe's hands late in the clock and he had to take a shot. If he instead he gave it to one of his teammates to take that shot, do I think they would've won? No, they likely would've missed more of those than Kobe did. That laker team also had a ton of injuries and the lakers were forced to play guys who wouldn't normally crack the rotation significant minutes in crucial games (e.g., Slava Medvedenko). That's not to say that Kobe couldn't have played a better series and I think he learned a lot from that series. My point though is that there was a reason why those shots were so tough and it wasn't simply because Kobe was deciding to take tough shots (that was part of it, but there were various other elements that contributed to this occurring).
    Why not? MJ was more efficient and so was many of his teammates. Why did Glen Rice Left? I know looking back its hard to see the picture of the game but Kobe took almost as many 3 pointers as rice but did not connect as many.
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-30-2020 at 02:40 PM.

  5. #5870
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Not at all and I showed crucial game where his inefficiency in a close loss could have been the difference. They went from a 3 peat team to a team that lost back to back years then broke up due to dysfunction as Kobe became the lead guy. Then Shaq won with young Wade in 06.
    Shaq also got in shape in 06. Part of the reason that the lakers weren't playing as much through shaq was he was really out of shape and wasn't active for long stretches of the game. In the Detroit seres, he had one game where he actually had a throwback type game and was very active, but outside of that he wasn't.

    I agree that Kobe could've played better, but the dysfunction was in part caused by shaq not being happy about no longer being the lead.

  6. #5871
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Kobe ORTG 103
    Shaq ORTG 117

    Kobe ORTG 90
    Shaq ORTG 111


    First one is SA series and second one is Detroit series. They should have done more to play through Shaq still at the time and Kobe should have been more of a team player all around instead of forcing himself with so much volume inefficiently. The defenses were good but they understood how Kobe was playing and let him be the lead guy while Shaq was just efficient 2nd option now off them and they didn't need to shift the entire defense in nearly the same ways to stop him regularly anymore. Shaq didn't just drop off a cliff, what happened is the dynamic changed where Kobe tried becoming that lead guy when it still should have gone through Shaq a bit more still. People at the time were questioning if Kobe could win one without Shaq due to this and like I have said before it is why many see the two later titles in higher regard as they think he was actually a better player then too than he was earlier on.
    Yes, but naturally a big man's ORTG is going to be skewed higher than a guards because they take much higher percentage shots (especially shaq since he primarily shot within 10 feet of the basket). I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have played more through shaq, but shaq was also not really being anywhere nearly as active as he was before and so he wasn't always in a position to make a play like he had been in years past.

  7. #5872
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Why not? MJ was more efficient and so was many of his teammates. Why did Glen Rice Left? I know looking back its hard to see the picture of the game but Kobe took almost as many 3 pointers as rice but did not connect as many.
    Well MJ was better than Kobe. No argument from me there. As for Glen rice, he didn't leave because of Kobe lol. Phil actually didn't want him on the team. He wanted to play fox instead because he thought he was a better fit and didn't really like rice as a player. Rice left because he overplayed his hand in trying to work out a contract and phil didn't want him to begin with so it was easy for them to cut him loose at that point.

  8. #5873
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Shaq also got in shape in 06. Part of the reason that the lakers weren't playing as much through shaq was he was really out of shape and wasn't active for long stretches of the game. In the Detroit seres, he had one game where he actually had a throwback type game and was very active, but outside of that he wasn't.

    I agree that Kobe could've played better, but the dysfunction was in part caused by shaq not being happy about no longer being the lead.
    I don't only blame Kobe for the dysfunction but his level of play and so on were an issue on the court when he tried to become that guy. You can say what you want about Shaq but he was showing up and efficient while Kobe was inefficient in part leading to them losing as he tried taking over the top spot. I might be a little angry if we were winning then a young guy starts trying to take over inefficiently and we lose too tbh.

    In the end though this is the key reason those rings are seen different. It is the context and his level of play overall being more of a #2 and we saw the fall off and how it hurt the team as he became the 1. Shaq was still efficient in those series and playing at high levels, he was also good in 06 with young Wade but they won without him being 00-02 version while Kobe was not able to in 03/04.

  9. #5874
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yes, but naturally a big man's ORTG is going to be skewed higher than a guards because they take much higher percentage shots (especially shaq since he primarily shot within 10 feet of the basket). I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have played more through shaq, but shaq was also not really being anywhere nearly as active as he was before and so he wasn't always in a position to make a play like he had been in years past.
    The key is after 01 teams needed to adjust to Kobe and by 03 the adjustment became he was going to try and be the lead guy just limit his efficiency more now and teams did so effectively to beat the lakers. Shaq was still efficient but Kobe was less so and really wanting to prove he was capable of being the man by then. It hurt the team overall though because he wasn't quite ready and still needed Shaq to carry a bit more of the load. Kobe's efficiency fell off because of the attention given to him as that shift occurred.

  10. #5875
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    yes, but my point was that this drop off in efficiency between when shaq was the best player and when Kobe was amounts to a trivial difference in terms of how it actually impacts the game. I'm not saying missed shots and turnovers don't matter, I'm saying that the difference between the two comparisons you're making isn't a notable difference that is typically going to lead to these massive differences.
    It Can it could be the difference between winning and losing. How many games boil down to 1 - 10 points in a single game. turn overs, %, rebounds all play a part. If your not a good rebounding team and you miss alot its not a good recipe.

  11. #5876
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    I will say Lebron turn the ball over at .5 at higher rate than Kobe and he shoots a lower percentage from the line. The higher turn overs could be a result from him play making vs Kobe in the triangle but it higher. A turnover has the same negative effect as a lower shooting %
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-30-2020 at 03:21 PM.

  12. #5877
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I don't only blame Kobe for the dysfunction but his level of play and so on were an issue on the court when he tried to become that guy. You can say what you want about Shaq but he was showing up and efficient while Kobe was inefficient in part leading to them losing as he tried taking over the top spot. I might be a little angry if we were winning then a young guy starts trying to take over inefficiently and we lose too tbh.

    In the end though this is the key reason those rings are seen different. It is the context and his level of play overall being more of a #2 and we saw the fall off and how it hurt the team as he became the 1. Shaq was still efficient in those series and playing at high levels, he was also good in 06 with young Wade but they won without him being 00-02 version while Kobe was not able to in 03/04.
    Blaming kobe for the dysfunction is silly and a little hypocritical. As the leader, you want to argue that shaq deserves the credit for the 3-peat more so than Kobe, okay fine. But as the leader, you also must take responsibility when the team falls apart. As someone who loved both shaq and Kobe, this falls on both of them, but Shaq has to be bear more of the blame. He had been taking shots at Kobe for many years and then unprovoked released a scathing commentary when Kobe said he was going to become a free agent at the end of the 04 season (if I'm remembering correctly, shaq basically said something to tone of "we don't need you, we can win without you, I won these titles on my own"). Not only did shaq do a horrible job of leading, he created and stoked a lot of the fire that led to the break up.

    It's also 100% false that Kobe was inefficient once he became the main guy in LA. In both 03 and 04 he ranked in the top 2-6 in the league or so in the typical metrics that are used to rate efficiency and offensive production. Was he as efficient as Shaq? No, but he absolutely was efficient and highly productive offensively and it was actually at an elite level. So yeah, his level of play was nowhere near what a typical #2 is (not even what a great #2 does). He was playing at an elite level for a great #1 guy. He was 1b to shaq's 1a. Number 2 options, true number 2 options, don't come close to putting up those numbers. If a player does what Kobe did during that time, they're likely elite superstars who just happen to be on a team with someone who is better than them, but are not a true #2 option.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-30-2020 at 03:25 PM.

  13. #5878
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    It Can it could be the difference between winning and losing. How many games boil down to 1 - 10 points in a single game. turn overs, %, rebounds all play a part. If your not a good rebounding team and you miss alot its not a good recipe.
    Yes, I agree that it can...but that's why we need to see how it actually translates in the game (e.g., how many of those misses open up easy offensive rebounds or second chance points, what is the difference between the two players on this front).

  14. #5879
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Blaming kobe for the dysfunction is silly and a little hypocritical. As the leader, you want to argue that shaq deserves the credit for the 3-peat more so than Kobe, okay fine. But as the leader, you also must take responsibility when the team falls apart. As someone who loved both shaq and Kobe, this falls on both of them, but Shaq has to be bear more of the blame. He had been taking shots at Kobe for many years and then unprovoked released a scathing commentary when Kobe said he was going to become a free agent at the of the 04 season (if I'm remembering correctly, shaq basically said something to tone of "we don't need you, we can win without you, I won these titles on my own"). Not only did shaq do a horrible job of leading, he created and stoked a lot of the fire that led to the break up.

    It's also 100% false that Kobe was inefficient once he became the main guy in LA. In both 03 and 04 he ranked in the top 2-6 in the league or so in the typical metrics that are used to rate efficiency. Was he as efficient as Shaq? No, but he absolutely was efficient and it was actually at an elite level. So yeah, his level of play was nowhere near what a topical #2 is. He was 1b to shaq's 1a. Number 2 options, true number 2 options don't come close to putting up those numbers. If they do, they're likely elite superstars who just happen to be on a team with someone who is better than them.
    You can't be the leader if someone else is just going to do their thing and the issues early on in his attitude have been widely known and Phil has talked about it too and so on. Again I am not solely blaming him for all dysfunction but the context itself clearly shows some issues he had individually that hurt the team. I am not talking about off the court fueding lol I have been pointing out the issues in Kobe's game and why he was not ready to lead yet/Lakers lost when he became that guy but later Shaq won with young Wade.

    In the playoffs when it mattered and teams are able to gameplan more specifically for the stars he fell off when given that attention and I fully covered the #'s. Unless you are now saying RS stats are all that matter, in which case I lol at your constant flip flopping and OK Lebron is simply the better player due to his stats then too.

    As has always been the point the context of those earlier rings are much different and when he actually started becoming the guy taking attention the team fell off and lost as did his efficiency in those key series they lost in. The reason Kobe isn't seen as prime MJ/Shaq/Lebron and so on levels 00-02 is that he wasn't at that level individually nor was he even his peak version until after years later. He was a very good player but the context and so on clearly show his issues and inability as that lead guy in 03/04.

  15. #5880
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yes, I agree that it can...but that's why we need to see how it actually translates in the game (e.g., how many of those misses open up easy offensive rebounds or second chance points, what is the difference between the two players on this front).
    It translated well. Pau/Odom, Bynum, Shaq were all solid rebounders. Becuase kobe was always aggressive there was no time off guarding him on the outside so you could not slack off.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •