[WC 1st round] San Antonio vs. L.A. Lakers

The problem is you are just going off numbers without considering context. The context is those are two horrible teams (I mean Portland sucks and that is when they are healthy-- in that game they were missing most of their starters!) When Kobe is having these huge 40-50 point games he is dominating the ball which is taking everyone else out of the offense. Especially in the 4th quarter it is so blatant-- he'll take shots over doubles, shots three feet behind the 3pt line, etc.

What I'm saying-- and a pretty good sample size backs this up-- is that when Kobe sits out, despite those gaudy stats not being there, the teams does just as well. It's the same thing that we're seeing with Denver since Carmelo left. It doesn't mean these guys are bad players, but that ball-dominant swingmen whose game is mostly scoring are easily replaceable.

Just do a thought experiment. What is it that makes you think Kobe is so great? He is a fluid scorer, sure, but can't you just sub in any number of NBA players there and get you the points on the same efficiency? Is it because he has made some amazing shots? Why is it that the Lakers always do fine without him?

 

Clippy...let's just let it out of the cage...

What did Kobe do to you? Steal your girl? Didn't high 5 you at a game? What happened?

For you to say Kobe "has never positively impacted his team", surely Kobe wronged you somewhere along the line? That's the only possible explanation for you to say something so bizarre.

 

I mean it quite literally. Kobe has missed 80+ games in his career and over that time the team has done just as well (actually it has done better if you discount the times Shaq also was out at the same time). So he has had no positive impact on their win rate over a statistical sample. This has nothing to do with my feelings about him. I just think his style of play is very overrated when it comes to assessing win rate (which is the end goal). I think you could have replaced him with any average swingman and the team would have done fine, due to having dominant post players and the best coach/system in the league.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

Then why so high in win shares? Once again...to say he has "no positive impact" is just a hilariously stupid thing to say. I'm sorry, but that's really the only way to describe it.

Once again, I understand if you call him overrated. Won't hear any argument from me. But saying he's literally been worthless to the Lakers franchise is just stupid. Not a single objective person would agree with you.

But you will forever hold on to this belief, so whatever. It is what it is...

 

Win shares is still a team accomplishment. It's basically just usage along with team wins. The best way to see how much of an impact a player has on wins is to see how they do without him. When Shaq was out during the threepeat, the Lakers were a horrible team (well below average). When Kobe was out, they were still among the top teams in the league.

I am just telling you the facts. You can interpret them however you like.

 

Your facts over short spans of times. I'm not sure if you have heard but 3-5 game stretches do not determine how well a team will do in the long term. Your analysis is flawed.

 

Let me give you another example. Look at Memphis this year. They lost their two ball-dominant swingmen in OJ Mayo and Rudy Gay. These are guys in the Kobe mold. Sure, they don't have the same stats but they are similar types (basically one-dimensional shot jackers who can rack up other stats by being ball-dominant). Everyone would consider them above-average at least.

As we can see, Memphis has gotten better simply by subtraction-- by giving other, more important players the minutes these guys took, as well as distributing the excess among unheralded role players eager for an opportunity. Meanwhile, Mayo and Gay were negatives as far as getting wins for their new teams. There is no doubt they are very talented players, but in the NBA, these types of players are overrated.

If Kobe were to be traded, you'd see the same thing. If his 30M salary could be replaced in pieces, it'd be even more dramatic.

Kobe Bryant == most overrated player in NBA history. Only people who understand the game see it.

 

I doubt Kobe's absence is the main reason the Lakers are trailing in this series, Kobe would still be a huge factor. The Lakers have had more injuries since the playoffs started. When Kobe was still playing, they lost games that they should have won. The Spurs are one of the deepest teams in the league, while Mike D'Antoni has went with small rotations (a trademark of his) for an aging roster. San Antonio got some questionable calls in their favor throughout game 2, especially in the 3rd quarter. Rarely do I defend the Lakers in terms of officiating. Some likely were legit fouls. Dwight didn't take enough shots in either game. Turnovers and how well the Spurs closed were huge too.

I think the rotations Mike D'Antoni went with in game 1 was a big reason why they lost. Steve Nash started and didn't give them much. Jodie Meeks didn't shoot well either, at least he was more active. Earl Clark didn't play much in game 1, Andrew Goudelock didn't play at all. The Lakers turned the ball over too much and missed too many open shots.

 

So Kobe's high usage rate lead to tons of wins....these are the facts as well...

 

Now this is at least logical...

No way is Kobe worth 30 million. No player is worth 30 million the way the current salary cap is structured. But nobody is disagreeing with that.

 

I often wonder if you are serious when you make comments like that. I have to believe you are trolling. People that know way more about basketball than you would disagree with you on this. If you truly believe this you are just as big of an egomaniac as Kobe.

 

Yes, the Lakers have been a winning team during Kobe's time. But the numbers say that if Kobe sat out, they would have been just as dominant. This leads me to believe that the reason they won was 1) the most dominant frontcourt in the NBA (obviously not a question in the Shaq era) and 2) the best coach/system in the NBA (debatable I suppose).

Personally, I think if you replaced Kobe with Ray Allen during the Shaq era, they would have won about 5 titles. Prime Ray was much less selfish and a better off-ball threat while still being a tremendous creator when necessary. Then Ray would be talked about as an all-time great and Kobe would have been Dominique 2.0. It just goes to show you how important your teammates are in establishing your legacy.

 

I'm the only one basing my opinions on the numbers necessary to accurately rate players. You can't just talk "5 rings" or "win shares" because those are team accomplishments. You have to put things in context, and the best way to do that is to look at performance when players sit vs. when they play.

If we want to go one step further, look at how Kobe does when he is surrounded by the alleged cream of the crop. Kobe on the Olympics was crap.. he consistently shot the same way he does in the NBA, about 40% and he was ineffective because isolation basketball isn't smart basketball when you have better teammates. Meanwhile guys like LeBron and Wade shot 60-70% and dominated the games.

 

I'm sorry, but you just went full r****d mode, please throttle down before a brain aneurysm occurs. No I'm just playing, but for real, to call him overrated is beyond absurd. Maybe his selection of mistress is overrated, but not him.

 

Not agreeing with clippy necessarily, but Win Shares is a metric that distributes credit for wins over the entire team. So if Odom, Pau, Shaq, etc. were in fact primarily responsible for a 60 win season, Kobe would get a huge boost in Win Shares even if his true contribution was just average.

That being said, I think Clippy is underrating the true impact of a good volume scorer on a team. Kobe may not be efficient enough with his shooting to contribute to wins per se, but his mere presence on the floor draws a great amount of attention from the defense and that leads to open looks for teammates.

Furthermore, the fact that Kobe is capable of taking so many shots at decent efficiency helps to ensure that his teammates aren't taking shots that may be out of their ideal range. For instance, if we take Kobe and his off of the 09-10 Lakers squad, Pau might be forced to take more 20 foot jumpers, Odom more 3's, Ariza more contested jumpshots, etc. etc. to compensate, which ends up hurting the efficiency of the team overall.

 

Oh, he's most certainly overrated... he's the most overrated player in NBA history and it's not even close. But that is mostly because his legions of sycophants thinks he's in the top-10. I suppose if the opinion was that Kobe was equivalent to Dominique Wilkins, then he wouldn't be so overrated.

 

Right, but that team did just fine against good competition when Kobe did sit. And that's because they ran the offense through the post (which is how the triangle is supposed to work), and the role players were able to handle the 20+ shots Kobe normally got with equivalent (or better) efficiency.

Now one argument is that teams would adjust to this, but I don't really see that as valid. A post-centric offense is the most efficient system in the NBA and is only contingent on having players who can hit open shots. And most NBA players can do that. There's really no need to regularly take difficult shots over two guys... aside from making SportsCenter highlights.

 

You talk numbers but when somebody posts good Kobe numbers you bring up context. You are the one arguing whatever fits your theory best.

 

If this is what you believe, then that's fine.


It's the "no positive impact" that remains foolish. It's simply not true.

 

What specifically are you arguing here? All I'm saying is that there's a pretty good sample of games when Kobe has been on good teams and was injured, and the team did fine-- the same as when he played. I think this is unexpected for such an allegedly great player.

I also think that bringing up a player scoring 45 points to "will" wins against crappy team isn't the best argument, because it kind of shows how much is needed for ball-dominant performances to be effective.