Kobe vs Lebron: Who is the better player?

[Big Moves03]

No statistician would say "they were all on good teams so they just all basically even out". That is lazy (and you know it). Just because teams were good doesn't tell us how good, how good relative to their opponents, whether a player was disproportionately responsible for their success, etc.

Saying "well they all played for good teams and there's no point in ascertaining any specificity or exactness beyond that" is just lazy. Yes, Kobe's support on the 00 Lakers was good. Dr. J's support on the 83 76ers was good. That doesn't mean they were exactly equal, exactly equal relative to the competition, or exactly equal in the difficulty of the teams they faced in the postseason. And trying to reduce it down so it's all the same is the exact opposite of any sort of actual analysis.

Whatever your gripe is with statistics, it's far more accurate in measuring these things than just assuming they're all exactly equal.

I wouldn't say it's lazy so much as it's a rough approximation. I agree with you that it's far from perfect and there are certainly some issues with it, as you note. I dont disagree with you on those, but where we disagree is that statistics provide a better measure. I do acknowledge that I can be wrong about this, but until I see more data on this, I'm pretty content with this method of assessment. If LBJ ends up winning another title or two, my list wouldnt end up looking all that different from what those who are using the statistics to assess players, so the difference between the two methods isn't really leading to major differences either way.

[valade16]

I wouldn't say it's lazy so much as it's a rough approximation. I agree with you that it's far from perfect and there are certainly some issues with it, as you note. I dont disagree with you on those, but where we disagree is that statistics provide a better measure. I do acknowledge that I can be wrong about this, but until I see more data on this, I'm pretty content with this method of assessment. If LBJ ends up winning another title or two, my list wouldnt end up looking all that different from what those who are using the statistics to assess players, so the difference between the two methods isn't really leading to major differences either way.

A rough approximation is the nicest way of putting it. I know you keep saying you think it’s a better way to measure, but it’s not based on anything tangible. In fact you deflect from analyzing the link in any detail like the plague. The only reason you like using it is because it confirms your previously held opinions. If you subjected it to the same scrutiny you do stats you’d rightfully drop your insistence on using it.

And yes, if Bron wins 2 more you’ll have finally caught up to reality. But the difference is, stats got there faster. So even if your methodology isn’t majorly different in rankings, it’s majorly different in your ability to recognize what everyone else knew a long time ago.

[Saddletramp]

No, I do think the heat could've won that series. I simply said it wasn't all LBJ's fault that they didnt win. It's never one player's fault just like it's never one player who wins. I also didnt say that titles are the end all/be all. I said that they are critical in distinguishing among the top tier players in the history of the league. You guys who like to ignore titles would have a stronger case in the LBJ scenario if he didn't play close to the past decade of his prime (i.e., the entirety of his prime) with a bevy of superstars, which frankly no one has had the luxury of having).

The type of argument that you guys like to make would be fitting if LBJ played his entire career on a horrible team, but he didnt so that logic doesn't really fit. I've said from the start that a superstar can put up insane numbers whenever they want (e.g., Harden is doing that now but that style of play will never, ever, ever lead to a title...Harden can win a title, but not playing like that, not unless he's in a KD type situation and even then it would be hard with that style of play) and so that's why simply looking at numbers isn't really useful for distinguishing among super stars and titles absolutely matter and carry a lot of weight (much more than the numbers (of course this is assuming that a player is elite), imo).

Again, if a guy played his entire career on bad teams, then sure, maybe titles aren't the best metric for that player (but it would still count against him either way because we wouldnt know if that player has what it takes to actually win in the truest sense). However, none of this is relevant or applicable here, because LBJ has had incredible help at historic levels for his entire prime (not sure any superstar can really say that in the modern NBA). To his credit, LBJ's prime lasted a long time and he's not too far off from that level now, but he's had an enormous amount of help during that time so there's no reason why we shouldn't hold him to the same standards of winning that we've held other stars. This idea that titles aren't that important is more of a newer concept (at least within the last 5 years or so), meaning that everyone before LBJ was held to a critical standard of winning and now we somehow relax that standard because the guy we want to push hasn't met that criteria?? Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me, especially given that he's had incredible help (note that this argument holds with or without kobe in the equation, although kobe was held to the traditional standard of winning for a superstar as all those before him).

What the **** are you talking about? Kobe played with a Top 5 all timer......Bird had studs, Magic had studs, Jorda......oh yeah, Pippen was trash.......
Lebron, with the exception of Wade (who broke down pretty quick into the experiment) has never played with a guy who led his team past the first round and he won a title with two dudes who had never even sniffed the playoffs without him before playing together.

And again, I know you downplay them but the Warriors team he faced with Durant were practically unbeatable, especially after Kyrie forced a trade and he had no business winning 2 games that first year without Love and only one game with Kyrie. Kobe never faced a team at that level. Much like that last Spurs series, those losses aren’t on Lebron.

“This idea that titles aren't that important is more of a newer concept (at least within the last 5 years or so), meaning that everyone before LBJ was held to a critical standard of winning and now we somehow relax that standard because the guy we want to push hasn't met that criteria??”

Titles have always been important......within context. If Malone had won one it wouldn’t vault him into the top ten just like Dirk wasn’t vaulted up when he got a ring. Barkley wouldn’t have, either. Like Markie said, Bird won 3 with a constant and GREAT team but he’s not getting the same treatment that Lebron does from you but NOW the criteria is weaker?

First Bolded: Except as I noted before, PER actually rewards shooting, even if you don't necessarily make the shot. So someone who shoots a ton instead of passing a ton will end up with a higher PER (it's why PER is not a good stat to use, it values something that doesn't generally provide value: a shot).

Second Bolded: First, you're wrong. Like I said, you have no idea about the statistics which you're claiming are bad, so why would I ever trust you when you are literally ignorant of the subject to which you speak.

Second, I don't believe you. If this were true, you would not use rings, because rings is not only entirely correlational, it is far more correlational and dependent on other variables than the stats I'm referencing.

You can't say "those stats can't separate the impact of the players" and then cling to a methodology that is worse at separating the impact of players.

You're like someone who says "you can't trust the ropes in rock climbing, it's dangerous" and then say "that's why when I rock climb I don't use any ropes at all".

Sure rock climbing with ropes may be dangerous, but rock climbing without them is far more so. Similarly, statistics may be correlational, but rings is far more so.

And any self respecting statistician would not use rings to determine a player's value knowing how little correlation there actually is from one to the other.

I was wondering the same thing when he said:

“As to the +/- point you make, these are not good measures because they strongly correlate with who you're on the floor with and when you're on the floor“

So stats and +/- can’t be used because no one is ever on the floor with the same group of players against the same group of players in the same situations but rings are ok because...... oh yeah, synergy.





You sure do post a lot of words to defend Kobe/downplay Lebron, Big boy. I just wish they were consistent and not so easily transparent.

[Big Moves03]

What the **** are you talking about? Kobe played with a Top 5 all timer......Bird had studs, Magic had studs, Jorda......oh yeah, Pippen was trash.......
Lebron, with the exception of Wade (who broke down pretty quick into the experiment) has never played with a guy who led his team past the first round and he won a title with two dudes who had never even sniffed the playoffs without him before playing together.

And again, I know you downplay them but the Warriors team he faced with Durant were practically unbeatable, especially after Kyrie forced a trade and he had no business winning 2 games that first year without Love and only one game with Kyrie. Kobe never faced a team at that level. Much like that last Spurs series, those losses aren’t on Lebron.

“This idea that titles aren't that important is more of a newer concept (at least within the last 5 years or so), meaning that everyone before LBJ was held to a critical standard of winning and now we somehow relax that standard because the guy we want to push hasn't met that criteria??”

Titles have always been important......within context. If Malone had won one it wouldn’t vault him into the top ten just like Dirk wasn’t vaulted up when he got a ring. Barkley wouldn’t have, either. Like Markie said, Bird won 3 with a constant and GREAT team but he’s not getting the same treatment that Lebron does from you but NOW the criteria is weaker?



I was wondering the same thing when he said:

“As to the +/- point you make, these are not good measures because they strongly correlate with who you're on the floor with and when you're on the floor“

So stats and +/- can’t be used because no one is ever on the floor with the same group of players against the same group of players in the same situations but rings are ok because...... oh yeah, synergy.





You sure do post a lot of words to defend Kobe/downplay Lebron. I just wish they were consistent and not so easily transparent.

Shaq's not a top 5 all-timer, it's mostly people on this forum who put him on that tier and this is coming from a laker fan who loves shaq. At any rate, even if shaq is top 5 all-time, kobe didnt play with him during his prime (there were probably only about 3-4 years where shaq and kobe were stars together during that stint (and the last two years shaq was highly unmotivated and out of shape). Second, that's one player for about 3-4 years...kobe didnt play with any other superstars really for the rest of his career. Bird did play with studs, but that was also in an era where there were far fewer teams and so good teams were a lot more stacked because of that so it's silly to draw that type of comparison because there were other similarly stacked teams during that era. Same with Magic (who after 87 only had one other legit stud in Worthy and that lasted for about 2-3 more years before Worthy declined. Pippen wasn't trash, but he wasn't really a superstar (it's mostly you guys who like to prop up LBJ make the case that he was).

The fact is that Wade was a top 3 player when LBJ came over and Bosh was arguably a top 10 player. Love was also considered close to a top 5 player when he went to the Cavs and Kyrie was arguably a top 10-15 guy at the time as well (and is still in that tier). AD is considered a top 5 player, if not top 3. MJ played with Pippen, Magic played with Kareem (who was a star for about 7 years) and Worthy, Bird played with McHale and Parrish, Kobe played with shaq (both were stars simultaneously for about 3-4 years) and Pau. Duncan had Parker and Ginobli.

The fact is that all of these guys basically had star player teammates who then declined and grew old with their team. They weren't constantly re-upping and getting new star teammates every few years, especially during their primes. Anyone who can't see that LBJ has had tremendous help is likely viewing this with LBJ tinted glasses. Wade, Bosh, Love, Irving, and now AD and all during his prime or very close to it. That there is key. Regardless of where one wants to rank these guys, it's clear that there was tremendous help at historic levels.

My position on rings can be summed up to they provide a rough approximation of winning, whereas it's not really clear what state provide or assess. As far as I can tell, they're mostly for fans to have dumb online debates about.

[Big Moves03]

A rough approximation is the nicest way of putting it. I know you keep saying you think it’s a better way to measure, but it’s not based on anything tangible. In fact you deflect from analyzing the link in any detail like the plague. The only reason you like using it is because it confirms your previously held opinions. If you subjected it to the same scrutiny you do stats you’d rightfully drop your insistence on using it.

And yes, if Bron wins 2 more you’ll have finally caught up to reality. But the difference is, stats got there faster. So even if your methodology isn’t majorly different in rankings, it’s majorly different in your ability to recognize what everyone else knew a long time ago.

It basically amounts to I'm not in favor of using a flawed, complex methodology which is unclear as to what it really assesses. Instead, I prefer a more basic methodology that allows us to draw very similar conclusions and which we at least know is directly related to winning.

Although I may reach that conclusion later than some, on the flip side, we have many on here who were arguing how Giannis should be in the top 10-15 all time and were using stats as their main form of support (because of course there isn't anything else to support that at this point given his time in the league and lack of winning). These playoffs showed just how astronomically misguided those positions were. Another way to put it is that statistics allow for far too liberal (an unacceptable level imo) conclusions about how great a player is. In contrast, using titles as a method seems to be far more conservative. In other words, I require a much higher standard of proof than we get with statistics...and so yes, I will always go with the far more conservative approach in these kinds of cases. Basically, I'm a skeptic on these matters and any truly objective person should be, in my view. So yes, when someone wants to make the case that a player is in the top 5 let alone top 2-3, it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me (you all are simply much more easily convinced)...this is really what you are saying with the different methodologies and the conclusions they lead to.

[MarkieMark48]

Yes, he meets the criteria to be considered with the most elite, but just not to be in the top 3 like many of the posters on here want to put him in, imo. This is a personal preference of course, but I don't really put that much weight in Finals MVPs, especially because it's based on a very small sample size. When I'm weighting players titles, I basically look at whether a player is a superstar and is filling that role on their team when they lead a team to title. For what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to have LBJ ahead of Bird, I personally do not, because I think Bird was much rougher for the defense to guard than LBJ, which I think has a far greater impact than any metrics we have at the moment.

Im sure you dont bc it hurts Kobe's resume compared to other players we are incorporating into this debate.

[Big Moves03]

Im sure you dont bc it hurts Kobe's resume compared to other players we are incorporating into this debate.

No, it has nothing to do with Kobe. When I'm evaluating or ranking players I never think, "oh, this guy had a finals MVP and this guy didn't". It's a nice achievement and all, but it's not really something that I've ever thought was a big thing. It's funny how you guys assume all of my positions are to prop up Kobe and put down LBJ. I had these methods of evaluation years before either of them ever made it onto the scene.

[MarkieMark48]

No, it has nothing to do with Kobe. When I'm evaluating or ranking players I never think, "oh, this guy had a finals MVP and this guy didn't". It's a nice achievement and all, but it's not really something that I've ever thought was a big thing. It's funny how you guys assume all of my positions are to prop up Kobe and put down LBJ. I had these methods of evaluation years before either of them ever made it onto the scene.

Well its an award that says this guy was the most important player in a series that determines the league champion, so yea... its kind of a big deal to me. The regular season MVP is also kind of a big deal to me, whats your opinion of that award?

Sorry, I havent been keeping track of your opinions on PSD pre-1996

[Big Moves03]

Well its an award that says this guy was the most important player in a series that determines the league champion, so yea... its kind of a big deal to me. The regular season MVP is also kind of a big deal to me, whats your opinion of that award?

Sorry, I havent been keeping track of your opinions on PSD pre-1996

Ehh, kind of, but certainly not always. They're nice awards, but they just don't carry that much weight for me. KD has two finals MVPs and I consider them almost entirely meaningless (as his team could've probably won those without him even on the team) and I love KD. Iggy has a finals MVP and the same holds for him. Similarly KL has two and the first he was certainly important but probably not the best player on his team and the second who he only got because the warriors all ended up getting hurt (and I love KL). Worthy won the finals MVP in 88 and he wasn't the most important or best player on the team, a similar case can be made with Billups in 04.

A similar thing happens with the regular season. Nash won two regular season MVPs and he was never in the top 5 in my book (and not that close either). Rose won the MVP and he wasn't the best player, same with KG and various other instances. I consider these nice awards but to me they aren't that big of a deal for me when I'm evaluating players. I couldn't tell you how many MVPs Bird won, but I have him in my top 10. Shaq only won one and he was a whole lot better than Nash who has two; shaq was also probably the best player in the league for about 4-5 years or so. These awards are just never been something I personally care that much about. When kobe won it in 08 I thought to myself "oh cool" and that was about it, same with shaq in 2000. These awards are afterthoughts to me and I care about them about as much as I care about a dunk contest, an all-star game MVP or a 3 pt-contest winner. They carry a little more weight than the all-star game awards for me, but I care about them along those same lines. For instance, I had to look up who won the defensive player of the year award right now. I was hoping AD would win it, but I also didnt care enough about it to look it up until I was writing this specific post.

[MarkieMark48]

Ehh, kind of, but certainly not always. They're nice awards, but they just don't carry that much weight for me. KD has two finals MVPs and I consider them almost entirely meaningless (as his team could've probably won those without him even on the team) and I love KD. Iggy has a finals MVP and the same holds for him. Similarly KL has two and the first he was certainly important but probably not the best player on his team and the second who he only got because the warriors all ended up getting hurt (and I love KL). Worthy won the finals MVP in 88 and he wasn't the most important or best player on the team, a similar case can be made with Billups in 04.

A similar thing happens with the regular season. Nash won two regular season MVPs and he was never in the top 5 in my book (and not that close either). Rose won the MVP and he wasn't the best player, same with KG and various other instances. I consider these nice awards but to me they aren't that big of a deal for me when I'm evaluating players. I couldn't tell you how many MVPs Bird won, but I have him in my top 10. Shaq only won one and he was a whole lot better than Nash who has two; shaq was also probably the best player in the league for about 4-5 years or so. These awards are just never been something I personally care that much about. When kobe won it in 08 I thought to myself "oh cool" and that was about it, same with shaq in 2000. These awards are afterthoughts to me and I care about them about as much as I care about a dunk contest, an all-star game MVP or a 3 pt-contest winner.

Im definitely not saying the best... how about I rephrase it as the media that are eligible to vote deem it as the most important person in that series.

There are still people that think Kyrie should have won finals MVP in 16 even though Lebron led both teams in Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks. Thats just laughable to me, when I hear someone say that, I want to discredit them completely because they either dont have a clue, or just hate Lebron so much that they dont want to give him any credit for anything.

So in a nutshell youre basically raking by is player X elite? If yes how many championships did they win?

[Big Moves03]

Im definitely not saying the best... how about I rephrase it as the media that are eligible to vote deem it as the most important person in that series.

There are still people that think Kyrie should have won finals MVP in 16 even though Lebron led both teams in Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks. Thats just laughable to me, when I hear someone say that, I want to discredit them completely because they either dont have a clue, or just hate Lebron so much that they dont want to give him any credit for anything.

So in a nutshell youre basically raking by is player X elite? If yes how many championships did they win?

LBJ definitely should've won finals MVP in 16. Kyrie hit a big shot and was really good, but that was rightfully LBJ's award.

Yeah, I'm basically making a general classification in terms of whether they are on a similar level, and if they are then I look at titles. I do weight back-to-backs and 3-peats more heavily than individual titles and there is certainly something to be said about whether said player was the A option on his team for those titles (and so that counts against Kobe some, since Shaq was better than him during their run together). Those are the general factors I'm looking at. I also don't think it's unreasonable to use statistics instead, but that's just not my preferred method.

[blams]

Kyrie wasn't even that great in that series lol. Its an incredibly terrible basketball thought to consider. He's a terrible defender and had 10 pts in game 1.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[MarkieMark48]

LBJ definitely should've won finals MVP in 16. Kyrie hit a big shot and was really good, but that was rightfully LBJ's award.

Yeah, I'm basically making a general classification in terms of whether they are on a similar level, and if they are then I look at titles. I do weight back-to-backs and 3-peats more heavily than individual titles and there is certainly something to be said about whether said player was the A option on his team for those titles (and so that counts against Kobe some, since Shaq was better than him during their run together). Those are the general factors I'm looking at. I also don't think it's unreasonable to use statistics instead, but that's just not my preferred method.

Thats perfectly fine and I have no problems with that. If thats the case then Lebron wont pass some guys in your eyes until he at least ties or passes them in titles.... but with that same stance its also possible(unlikely however) for Lebron to still become the GOAT.

[MarkieMark48]

Kyrie wasn't even that great in that series lol. Its an incredibly terrible basketball thought to consider. He's a terrible defender and had 10 pts in game 1.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

"Kyrie carried Lebron to that championship" No he didnt, not at all. I have no argument at all against the position of Cleveland doesnt win that championship without Kyrie, because I agree with it but for someone to think Kyrie was more deserving of MVP than Lebron in that series is just a horrible take.

[valade16]

It basically amounts to I'm not in favor of using a flawed, complex methodology which is unclear as to what it really assesses. Instead, I prefer a more basic methodology that allows us to draw very similar conclusions and which we at least know is directly related to winning.

Although I may reach that conclusion later than some, on the flip side, we have many on here who were arguing how Giannis should be in the top 10-15 all time and were using stats as their main form of support (because of course there isn't anything else to support that at this point given his time in the league and lack of winning). These playoffs showed just how astronomically misguided those positions were. Another way to put it is that statistics allow for far too liberal (an unacceptable level imo) conclusions about how great a player is. In contrast, using titles as a method seems to be far more conservative. In other words, I require a much higher standard of proof than we get with statistics...and so yes, I will always go with the far more conservative approach in these kinds of cases. Basically, I'm a skeptic on these matters and any truly objective person should be, in my view. So yes, when someone wants to make the case that a player is in the top 5 let alone top 2-3, it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me (you all are simply much more easily convinced)...this is really what you are saying with the different methodologies and the conclusions they lead to.

First Bolded: No, you prefer to use a flawed, simplistic methodology which clearly is inferior at assessing what you're measuring. (You know it's factually and statistically inferior which is why you pointedly avoid actually analyzing the veracity of using rings on a statistical level)

Second Bolded: Name me a single person who said Giannis should be 10-15 all-time?

Third Bolded: This is again where you're wrong. Anyone who said Giannis is 10-15 all-time because of regular season stats (if indeed anyone did) is not using stats correctly. If they'd have looked at postseason stats (as I've advocated doing for awhile now and you continually ignore) you'd know Giannis is nowhere near Top 10-15 all-time. So the stats actually support the conclusion you reached (except they are far more specific in explaining why).

Fourth Bolded: Except it doesn't take much evidence at all to convince you. All it takes is the number of rings on a person's hand.


It's truly laughable you waive away any differentiation in teams with "eh, it all evens out" (especially given your claims of being a statistician) and then accuse us of using a simplistic measurement, especially when you called statistics too complex.

You're all over the place. If I had a championship ring for every time you've contradicted yourself, you'd consider me the GOAT.