Kobe & the Percentage of a Team’s Points Produced

Posted by Neil Paine on December 8, 2010

I was messing around with the database this morning, and I decided to check out the 2010-11 leaders in the percentage of team points produced by a player while he's on the court:

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	PProd	PProd%
Kobe Bryant	2011	32	LAL	21	697.0	537.1	34.0%
Russell Westbrook	2011	22	OKC	22	823.0	580.0	33.6%
LeBron James	2011	26	MIA	22	816.0	547.3	32.3%
Derrick Rose	2011	22	CHI	18	698.0	461.8	32.2%
Eric Gordon	2011	22	LAC	20	751.0	464.8	31.0%
Deron Williams	2011	26	UTA	22	832.0	525.9	30.6%
Devin Harris	2011	27	NJN	20	631.0	365.2	30.4%
Kevin Durant	2011	22	OKC	18	719.0	453.0	30.1%
Dwyane Wade	2011	29	MIA	21	737.0	456.4	29.8%
Steve Nash	2011	36	PHO	19	646.0	423.5	29.4%
Carmelo Anthony	2011	26	DEN	20	694.0	448.5	29.3%
Chris Paul	2011	25	NOH	20	688.0	391.8	28.8%
Amare Stoudemire	2011	28	NYK	22	811.0	519.2	28.8%
Dirk Nowitzki	2011	32	DAL	21	757.0	445.8	28.7%
Kevin Martin	2011	27	HOU	21	678.0	420.4	28.5%
Blake Griffin	2011	21	LAC	22	792.0	445.5	28.1%
Rodney Stuckey	2011	24	DET	21	684.0	369.1	28.1%
Kevin Love	2011	22	MIN	21	721.0	428.4	28.0%
Brandon Jennings	2011	21	MIL	20	705.0	369.2	27.8%
Monta Ellis	2011	25	GSW	21	832.0	489.9	27.8%

No doubt that this has been a good season so far for Kobe, but if he's producing 34% of L.A.'s points at age 32 on a team with Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Ron Artest, & co., what must his % have been around 2006 or so, when he was lining up with guys like Smush Parker and Brian Cook?

Curious, I dialed up the post-1977 single-season leaders in this stat:

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	PProd	PProd%
Dwyane Wade	2009	27	MIA	79	3048.0	2399.9	39.0%
Michael Jordan	1987	23	CHI	82	3281.0	2741.7	38.6%
Kobe Bryant	2006	27	LAL	80	3277.0	2575.3	38.3%
Tracy McGrady	2003	23	ORL	75	2954.0	2277.5	37.8%
Dwyane Wade	2010	28	MIA	77	2792.0	2075.2	37.3%
LeBron James	2010	25	CLE	76	2966.0	2321.5	37.0%
LeBron James	2009	24	CLE	81	3054.0	2345.9	37.0%
LeBron James	2008	23	CLE	75	3027.0	2223.9	36.9%
Allen Iverson	2006	30	PHI	72	3103.0	2335.8	36.8%
Michael Jordan	1988	24	CHI	82	3311.0	2626.7	36.6%
Michael Jordan	1989	25	CHI	81	3255.0	2573.7	35.8%
Bernard King	1985	28	NYK	55	2063.0	1600.7	35.7%
Jerry Stackhouse	2001	26	DET	80	3215.0	2258.6	35.6%
Allen Iverson	2005	29	PHI	75	3174.0	2311.9	35.6%
Michael Jordan	1990	26	CHI	82	3197.0	2573.5	35.6%
LeBron James	2006	21	CLE	79	3361.0	2403.3	35.4%
Allen Iverson	2002	26	PHI	60	2622.0	1750.3	35.3%
Dwyane Wade	2006	24	MIA	75	2892.0	2088.1	34.8%
Allen Iverson	2001	25	PHI	71	2979.0	2021.4	34.7%
Kobe Bryant	2007	28	LAL	77	3140.0	2301.4	34.6%

He was at 38% in '06, which is actually the 3rd-highest rate since we can calculate this stat (btw, I'm guessing Wilt Chamberlain would have a presence on this list if we extended it back to the 1960s). Career-wise, Kobe ranks 5th since '78:

Player	G	MP	PProd	PProd%
Dwyane Wade	492	18454	12670.0	34.3%
LeBron James	570	22924	15657.2	33.8%
Michael Jordan	1072	41010	29882.9	33.7%
Allen Iverson	914	37584	23675.2	31.4%
Kobe Bryant	1042	38063	25091.1	31.3%
Tracy McGrady	836	28501	17291.6	30.4%
Shaquille O'Neal	1185	41497	26239.2	29.8%
Vince Carter	870	32118	18636.4	29.7%
Carmelo Anthony	534	19441	12350.7	29.6%
Karl Malone	1476	54852	34350.9	29.5%
Dominique Wilkins	1074	38113	24509.6	29.3%
George Gervin	709	23831	16651.6	29.2%
World B. Free	737	23519	15306.8	29.0%
Gilbert Arenas	482	17913	10719.9	28.9%
Tim Duncan	997	36165	20657.8	28.8%
Adrian Dantley	878	31335	20007.9	28.5%
Paul Pierce	904	33632	19166.7	28.3%
Yao Ming	486	15818	8624.3	28.0%
Bernard King	874	29417	18021.7	27.9%
David Robinson	987	34271	19989.2	27.8%

Of course, the critic would point out that Kobe has also used more possessions than anyone else when creating those points, and that's true both this year...

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	Poss	Poss%
Kobe Bryant	2011	32	LAL	21	697.0	476.1	34.9%
Russell Westbrook	2011	22	OKC	22	823.0	526.8	33.0%
LeBron James	2011	26	MIA	22	816.0	499.4	32.3%
Derrick Rose	2011	22	CHI	18	698.0	428.7	31.5%
Dwyane Wade	2011	29	MIA	21	737.0	434.2	31.1%
Carmelo Anthony	2011	26	DEN	20	694.0	423.5	30.4%
Kevin Durant	2011	22	OKC	18	719.0	420.7	30.2%
Amare Stoudemire	2011	28	NYK	22	811.0	469.6	28.9%
Deron Williams	2011	26	UTA	22	832.0	450.0	28.6%
Eric Gordon	2011	22	LAC	20	751.0	406.1	28.2%
Dwight Howard	2011	25	ORL	19	664.0	349.7	27.7%
Devin Harris	2011	27	NJN	20	631.0	323.1	27.6%
Michael Beasley	2011	22	MIN	19	637.0	358.7	27.5%
Blake Griffin	2011	21	LAC	22	792.0	411.5	27.1%
Steve Nash	2011	36	PHO	19	646.0	346.4	27.0%
Monta Ellis	2011	25	GSW	21	832.0	446.6	26.9%
Gilbert Arenas	2011	29	WAS	17	569.0	295.8	26.8%
Tyreke Evans	2011	21	SAC	18	659.0	339.3	26.8%
Dirk Nowitzki	2011	32	DAL	21	757.0	383.9	26.8%
Brandon Jennings	2011	21	MIL	20	705.0	355.8	26.7%

...and historically:

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	Poss	Poss%
Kobe Bryant	2006	27	LAL	80	3277.0	2265.2	36.5%
Dwyane Wade	2009	27	MIA	79	3048.0	2083.5	36.5%
Michael Jordan	1987	23	CHI	82	3281.0	2350.2	35.9%
Allen Iverson	2002	26	PHI	60	2622.0	1738.2	35.8%
Dwyane Wade	2010	28	MIA	77	2792.0	1831.5	35.1%
Allen Iverson	2006	30	PHI	72	3103.0	2102.9	35.1%
Allen Iverson	2005	29	PHI	75	3174.0	2192.8	34.9%
Kobe Bryant	2011	32	LAL	21	697.0	476.1	34.9%
Allen Iverson	2004	28	PHI	48	2040.0	1297.1	34.7%
Michael Jordan	2002	38	WAS	60	2092.0	1332.4	34.6%
Tracy McGrady	2007	27	HOU	71	2539.0	1652.9	34.4%
LeBron James	2009	24	CLE	81	3054.0	1928.1	34.2%
Tracy McGrady	2003	23	ORL	75	2954.0	1956.3	34.1%
Jerry Stackhouse	2001	26	DET	80	3215.0	2165.2	34.1%
LeBron James	2010	25	CLE	76	2966.0	1920.1	34.0%
Allen Iverson	2001	25	PHI	71	2979.0	1901.0	33.8%
LeBron James	2008	23	CLE	75	3027.0	1911.9	33.6%
LeBron James	2006	21	CLE	79	3361.0	2082.4	33.1%
Bernard King	1985	28	NYK	55	2063.0	1415.8	33.1%
Russell Westbrook	2011	22	OKC	22	823.0	526.8	33.0%

Kobe is 5th in career possession % as well:

Player	G	MP	Poss	Poss%
Dwyane Wade	492	18454	11433.0	33.0%
LeBron James	570	22924	13705.1	31.8%
Michael Jordan	1072	41010	25331.5	31.7%
Allen Iverson	914	37584	22478.0	31.1%
Kobe Bryant	1042	38063	22390.5	30.5%
Carmelo Anthony	534	19441	11539.4	29.9%
Tracy McGrady	836	28501	16016.8	29.6%
Shaquille O'Neal	1185	41497	23247.7	28.9%
Dominique Wilkins	1074	38113	21972.9	28.6%
George Gervin	709	23831	14900.5	28.4%
Karl Malone	1476	54852	30462.2	28.4%
Vince Carter	870	32118	17063.7	28.3%
Gilbert Arenas	482	17913	9731.8	28.0%
Mark Aguirre	923	27730	15822.5	27.9%
World B. Free	737	23519	13927.3	27.9%
Tim Duncan	997	36165	18789.0	27.9%
Paul Pierce	904	33632	17545.3	27.2%
Jerry Stackhouse	903	29405	15229.0	27.1%
Chris Webber	831	30847	16376.0	27.0%
Zach Randolph	605	18873	9513.5	26.9%

One simple way to balance these two pieces of information out is to look at the player's points produced per team possession when he's on the court, which rewards both efficiency and usage volume. Here are the 2011 leaders by that metric:

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	Poss	PProd	PProd%	Poss%	PP/TmPoss
Kobe Bryant	2011	32	LAL	21	697.0	476.1	537.1	34.0%	34.9%	0.39
Russell Westbrook	2011	22	OKC	22	823.0	526.8	580.0	33.6%	33.0%	0.36
LeBron James	2011	26	MIA	22	816.0	499.4	547.3	32.3%	32.3%	0.35
Derrick Rose	2011	22	CHI	18	698.0	428.7	461.8	32.2%	31.5%	0.34
Deron Williams	2011	26	UTA	22	832.0	450.0	525.9	30.6%	28.6%	0.33
Steve Nash	2011	36	PHO	19	646.0	346.4	423.5	29.4%	27.0%	0.33
Dwyane Wade	2011	29	MIA	21	737.0	434.2	456.4	29.8%	31.1%	0.33
Kevin Durant	2011	22	OKC	18	719.0	420.7	453.0	30.1%	30.2%	0.33
Eric Gordon	2011	22	LAC	20	751.0	406.1	464.8	31.0%	28.2%	0.32
Carmelo Anthony	2011	26	DEN	20	694.0	423.5	448.5	29.3%	30.4%	0.32
Amare Stoudemire	2011	28	NYK	22	811.0	469.6	519.2	28.8%	28.9%	0.32
Kevin Martin	2011	27	HOU	21	678.0	354.0	420.4	28.5%	26.3%	0.31
Devin Harris	2011	27	NJN	20	631.0	323.1	365.2	30.4%	27.6%	0.31
Manu Ginobili	2011	33	SAS	20	652.0	323.6	398.0	27.7%	25.3%	0.31
Dirk Nowitzki	2011	32	DAL	21	757.0	383.9	445.8	28.7%	26.8%	0.31
Chris Paul	2011	25	NOH	20	688.0	316.9	391.8	28.8%	24.4%	0.30
Dwight Howard	2011	25	ORL	19	664.0	349.7	373.6	27.7%	27.7%	0.30
Monta Ellis	2011	25	GSW	21	832.0	446.6	489.9	27.8%	26.9%	0.30
Stephen Curry	2011	22	GSW	19	662.0	342.6	389.5	27.8%	25.9%	0.29
Blake Griffin	2011	21	LAC	22	792.0	411.5	445.5	28.1%	27.1%	0.29

The post-'77 single-season leaders:

Player	Year	Age	Tm	G	MP	Poss	PProd	PProd%	Poss%	PP/TmPoss
Dwyane Wade	2009	27	MIA	79	3048.0	2083.5	2399.9	39.0%	36.5%	0.42
Michael Jordan	1987	23	CHI	82	3281.0	2350.2	2741.7	38.6%	35.9%	0.42
LeBron James	2009	24	CLE	81	3054.0	1928.1	2345.9	37.0%	34.2%	0.42
Kobe Bryant	2006	27	LAL	80	3277.0	2265.2	2575.3	38.3%	36.5%	0.41
LeBron James	2010	25	CLE	76	2966.0	1920.1	2321.5	37.0%	34.0%	0.41
Michael Jordan	1990	26	CHI	82	3197.0	2090.1	2573.5	35.6%	32.4%	0.40
Michael Jordan	1988	24	CHI	82	3311.0	2136.5	2626.7	36.6%	32.4%	0.40
Dwyane Wade	2010	28	MIA	77	2792.0	1831.5	2075.2	37.3%	35.1%	0.40
Tracy McGrady	2003	23	ORL	75	2954.0	1956.3	2277.5	37.8%	34.1%	0.40
Kobe Bryant	2011	32	LAL	21	697.0	476.1	537.1	34.0%	34.9%	0.39
Michael Jordan	1991	27	CHI	82	3034.0	1890.2	2370.5	34.2%	31.3%	0.39
Michael Jordan	1989	25	CHI	81	3255.0	2099.6	2573.7	35.8%	31.9%	0.39
LeBron James	2008	23	CLE	75	3027.0	1911.9	2223.9	36.9%	33.6%	0.39
Michael Jordan	1993	29	CHI	78	3067.0	1936.1	2310.4	34.6%	32.8%	0.39
Allen Iverson	2006	30	PHI	72	3103.0	2102.9	2335.8	36.8%	35.1%	0.39
Michael Jordan	1996	32	CHI	82	3090.0	1830.9	2261.7	33.5%	31.2%	0.39
LeBron James	2006	21	CLE	79	3361.0	2082.4	2403.3	35.4%	33.1%	0.38
Dwyane Wade	2006	24	MIA	75	2892.0	1809.7	2088.1	34.8%	32.8%	0.38
Kobe Bryant	2007	28	LAL	77	3140.0	1995.1	2301.4	34.6%	32.6%	0.38
David Robinson	1994	28	SAS	80	3241.0	1912.9	2280.1	33.9%	31.4%	0.37

And, last but not least, the career leaders:

Player	G	MP	Poss	PProd	PProd%	Poss%	PP/TmPoss
Michael Jordan	1072	41010	25331.5	29882.9	33.7%	31.7%	0.37
Dwyane Wade	492	18454	11433.0	12670.0	34.3%	33.0%	0.37
LeBron James	570	22924	13705.1	15657.2	33.8%	31.8%	0.36
Kobe Bryant	1042	38063	22390.5	25091.1	31.3%	30.5%	0.34
Allen Iverson	914	37584	22478.0	23675.2	31.4%	31.1%	0.33
Shaquille O'Neal	1185	41497	23247.7	26239.2	29.8%	28.9%	0.33
Karl Malone	1476	54852	30462.2	34350.9	29.5%	28.4%	0.32
Carmelo Anthony	534	19441	11539.4	12350.7	29.6%	29.9%	0.32
Tracy McGrady	836	28501	16016.8	17291.6	30.4%	29.6%	0.32
Dominique Wilkins	1074	38113	21972.9	24509.6	29.3%	28.6%	0.32
George Gervin	709	23831	14900.5	16651.6	29.2%	28.4%	0.32
Vince Carter	870	32118	17063.7	18636.4	29.7%	28.3%	0.31
Gilbert Arenas	482	17913	9731.8	10719.9	28.9%	28.0%	0.31
World B. Free	737	23519	13927.3	15306.8	29.0%	27.9%	0.31
Tim Duncan	997	36165	18789.0	20657.8	28.8%	27.9%	0.31
Mark Aguirre	923	27730	15822.5	17226.2	27.6%	27.9%	0.30
Charles Barkley	1073	39330	19977.8	23835.5	27.5%	25.4%	0.30
Adrian Dantley	878	31335	16771.6	20007.9	28.5%	25.3%	0.30
Magic Johnson	906	33245	17357.7	20966.4	26.8%	24.9%	0.30
Dirk Nowitzki	941	34489	16890.1	19800.6	27.3%	25.6%	0.30

Is this the best way to balance usage vs. efficiency? Probably not. But even so, I think it's a somewhat underrated way to see who is making good things happen for his team offensively while he's on the floor.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 8th, 2010 at 9:20 am and is filed under Analysis, History, Just For Fun, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

93 Responses to “Kobe & the Percentage of a Team’s Points Produced”

Eric Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
#41

Let me be clear then: I am saying that Kobe Bryant *cannot* *possibly* be a top 5 player regardless of what his *team* does for the rest of his career. He is no longer the most *productive* player on his team, and if he ever is again it will be on a team incapable of winning the Finals. That part of his career is over: a human being cannot start to get better again after playing 45,000 NBA minutes.

Consider, if you would, a parallel: Anybody who thinks Gary Payton's career became more impressive when he came off the bench for Miami in 2006 is being disingenuous. Gary Payton's career stands or falls based on what Gary Payton did, and what he did for years against everyone including Jordan ought to stand out a heck of a lot more than 1 for 1 with 2 turnovers in 19 minutes in one game in 2006.
Cloud King Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Once again, NO ONE is saying Kobe is a top 5 player right now

But face it, the arguments used against Kobe could be used against practically any other player in the top 10, save for the top 3
AYC Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
#42, I don't think T-Mac was better than Kobe, but I do think he would have multiple championships if he had played with Shaq....
AYC Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
My top-ten
1.MJ
2.Wilt
3.Kareem
4.Russell
5.Magic
6.Bird
7.Shaq
8.Oscar
9.Hakeem
10.TD

And Lebron will be ahead of Kobe when all is said and done too
Anon Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
"Anon, I thought we were talking about points produced, not shots produced."

I was talking about shots created for one's team, which is what USG%/Poss% looks at - and is also what Kobe has a higher % of than Larry. And which also (partly) explains Kobe's lower shot %s.

"I thought advanced stat-heads like yourself valued efficient scorers over high-volume chuckers?"

Not true at all. There's certainly value in both, and evidence suggests a 1 ORtg point per 1% USG tradeoff. SPM likes both too, except it gives a more "organic" take of the game (to paraphrase Neil here) based on adjusted +/- regressions.

Both models are valid. And both see some value in Kobe's "shot-chucking".
Eric Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
#52

My top 10 looks like this: 1. Jordan. 2 (tie): Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson. The arguments I have proposed about Kobe could not be used against Jordan or Olajuwon (as previously stated).

-Russell is markedly the most productive player on his teams without having the benefit of blocks, commonly agreed to be an area he greatly excelled at. It would presumably be almost embarrassing to see how much better he was than his Hall of Fame teammates with blocks included.

-Chamberlain was by far the most productive player on his 1967 championship team, was 2nd at age 35 to Jerry West in 1972, presumably suffers to some degree from the same loss of measured blocks, was the greatest rebounder of all time, and puts the scoring abilities of anyone not named Michael Jordan to shame.

-Erving dominated an entire league to a degree not seen before or since. It was an inferior league, of course, but his dominance was so complete that to achieve it last year in the NBA you would have needed the scoring of Kevin Durant, the rebounding and shot-blocking of Marcus Camby, the assists of Jason Kidd, and the steals of Dwyane Wade.

-Bird's teams didn't even exit in the first round until 1989, when he played 6 games all year. In his rookie year he was among the best players on his title team, in the two later title years he was by far the best.

Kobe Bryant is simply not comparable to these all time greats in anything but the most superficial terms. If being on a winning team is all it takes to be great, Robert Horry is one of the greatest small forwards of all time.
Gil Meriken Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
@56 "If being on a winning team is all it takes to be great, Robert Horry is one of the greatest small forwards of all time."

Being on a winning teams and playing a large part of the minutes on those teams is usually the broad benchmark for greatness. I'm talking about the casual fan's perspective here. Horry fails in this regard.
Eric Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I left off Magic from the previous post, which is a shame because his case is the most interesting to compare to Kobe's as someone who started out clearly inferior to his teammate center.

Magic, as stated, was clearly not the most productive in 1980. In 1982 and 1985 he is neck and neck with Kareem, and by 1987 and 1988 it's no contest (as it ought to have been, Kareem being 40 years old at the time). Magic also gets more credit for playing with a more productive teammate due to his being primarily a creative role on offense, unlike any of the others listed (and certainly unlike Kobe).
AYC Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
OK, Anon, as long as you admit that the same measure puts Iverson above Kobe, Bird, Shaq, Magic, Stockton, Malone, etc.
Anon Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
OK, Anon, as long as you admit that the same measure puts Iverson above Kobe, Bird, Shaq, Magic, Stockton, Malone, etc.

Admit to what? Iverson's numbers, adjusted for era and poss%, don't compare to the players that you mentioned.

Not sure what he has to do with this discussion anyway.
Cloud King Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
the Pau argument is hilarious, considering Kobe has a higher PER and WS than Pau in 2008 and 2009, and in 2010 Pau had a higher WS but lower PER

but I guess advanced stats don't matter in this case?
Cloud King Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
also, on the subject of PER and Win Shares in the playoffs, for Kobe and Shaq in the championship years

2000: Shaq is clearly #1
2001: Kobe has higher WS, Shaq has higher PER
2002: Shaq is clearly #1

So if we're going to be talking about Kobe needing Pau, surely considering the advanced stats, Kobe is was #1 in 2001.

I guess we better knock Shaq for failing to win with Penny, Jones and Van Exel and needing Kobe and Wade to win it all
Jason J Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
62. I actually think that's a valid knock on Shaq. Not that he needed help (everybody does - it's not a valid knock on Kobe either IMO), but that he needed someone to close out games in the clutch. Some of that was his free throw shooting and some of it was just how difficult it can be to get a deep post player the ball in position to score with limited time on the clock.
Walter Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
#37

With regards to the Lakers missing the playoffs in 2005, that was 100% a defensive issue. The Lakers were 7th in ORtg and were one of only two teams in the top 10 not to make the playoffs. On the other hand they were 30th (yes... dead last) in DRtg!!!

Offense is typically the side of the floor that a star has more control over. There is one ball and the offense can determine if it goes to the star or not. On the other hand, defense is truly "only as strong as its weakest link" because the opposition determines where the ball goes and where the defense is going to be attacked.

Interestingly enough, accourding to 82games.com here were the opponent PER's for the Lakers 5 man rotation:
Atkins: 19.1
Bryant: 15.1
Butler: 20.0
Odom: 17.6
Mihm: 16.2

Kobe was the only starter to hold his opponent to a PER at the league average. Clearly the "All-Star" Butler was pathetic on defense (not taken into account for All-Star selections usually) and "Should have been an All-Star" Odom was not great either.

Here are the PER stats for the team as a whole by position:
Pos.... Own..... Opp.... Net
PG:....12.7.....18.9....-6.2
SG:....20.1.....15.1....+5.0
SF:....14.9.....18.4....-3.5
PF:....16.5.....17.4....-0.9
C:.....14.6.....17.5....-3.0

It should be quite evident that the Lakers failure for that 2004-05 season weren't the result of Kobe Bryant, but mainly the rest of the team that simply wasn't any good, especially on defense.
Neil Paine Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
#64 - It should also be noted that the Lakers' DRtg was 2.4 pts/100 worse when Kobe was on the floor, but was 3.4 pts/100 better when Odom was on the floor. Not to knock Bryant, but to add another data point to the mix (mainly because I think Odom is always underrated in these discussions).
Eric Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
#61

An advanced perspective on advanced stats is what is required. A sample like the playoffs of one year is subject to substantially more statistical noise than a season that is nearly four times longer, in the same way that the statistical noise in a sample of 100 is (much) more than severe than the noise in a sample of 400. A cursory examination of the relative variations in Kobe's playoff and regular season PER from year to year is evidence enough of this. When looking at the regular season, the contribution levels become clear, or again, looking at how Hakeem stacked up vs. the other Rockets or Bird vs. the other Celtics. There are no questions there.

#64

The opposing PER you cite is misleading. I'm not sure how 82games divides this up, but in addition to the 15.1 PER allowed as a SG, they give a value of 16.1 for Kobe playing(?) PG and 18.9 for SF. It's not at all clear if he would actually be guarding the opposing SG, PG, or SF in any of these situations, though, or if the Lakers were even playing man defense. I am a big fan of 82games, but I do not put much credence in opposing PERs for these very reasons.

I also take issue with the notion that we can draw conclusions solely from offensive and defensive ratings. Just last year, the NBA saw playoff teams ranked 1st/23rd (who else but the Suns), 24th/1st, 27th/11th, and 23rd/2nd. If a 27/11 team (the Bulls) could make it, why not Kobe's 7/30 squad? Defense may win championships, but does it win playoff berths? This is something I'm legitimately interested in now, so I'll be putting together a spreadsheet comparing O/D rtgs versus making the playoffs over the next few days.
Gil Meriken Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Too much ado about Kobe. Can we all agree he is top 100?
BSK Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
This was way back at #15, but it peaked my interest:
"Kobe Bryant is one of the most fascinating characters in the history of the NBA. On one hand, he's maximized every bit of physical ability he has -- the only things he can't do on a basketball court are things no aging 6'6 shooting guard could do. This tells me he has a very, very high basketball IQ -- every single time Kobe laces 'em up, he knows exactly what he is doing.

Which makes his insistence on dominating the ball despite playing with some extremely efficient post players VERY interesting. I think Tex Winter said it best:

"He understands the game. But — and don’t misinterpret this — he understands it a lot better than he plays it.”
O.K., Tex, so as not to misinterpret: Are you saying that he knows the right thing to do but sometimes chooses not to do it?
“Yup, that’s it,” says Tex."

My guess would be that there is a large emotional element at play here. How many of us take actions against our own best interests, knowing we are doing so, because of how our intellect interacts with our emotion.

This is not a knock, mind you. Emotion, in large part, has probably been a major motivating factor in Kobe getting where he is. But I'm sure it cuts the other way, too, at times. Thoughts?
AYC Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Gil, I know it's gone in a million different directions, but Neil's original post was about Kobe
dsong Says:
December 9th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Man, I understand that you guys hate Kobe, but he's a great player. No amount of arguing will change that.

I'm sure someone at some point will come up with yet another advanced stat that "proves" Kobe is not a great player. Or argue that Kobe is not as good as Jordan and thus is not a great player. Give it up, guys.
Get Buckets Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:05 am
I think when people argue about legacy's they are conflating two different things: 1) a player's ABILITY/TALENT and 2) a player's CAREER ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Like if Derek Jeter played for the KC Royals, he's still be the same player, but he obviously would not have nearly as impressive as a career -- these guys aren't golfers, they have teammates.

Now, talent-wise, Kobe is (in my estimation) somewhere in the #25-30 range of all-time players. He's a 6'6 shooting guard who can guard three positions at an All-Defense level; he can run point and he can create his own shot in almost any situation; these are all very valuable things for a basketball player to have. But he can't dominate in the paint, he's not going to average 8+ rebounds or block 2+ shots and he's not going to be nearly as efficient a scorer as someone like Shaq or Timmy Duncan. People will say yea he's not a center of course he can't do those things -- well that's why centers are more valuable than wing players! What they do on the court is more important! Same reason why an equally talented SS is much much more valuable than a similarly talented 1B.

Career wise, you can start listing off all kind of stuff, and yes he's getting up there into the top 15-10 range in terms of "career accomplishments." But so much of that is the product of who he is playing with that I can't give him ALL the credit for it. Is anyone going to argue that if he played with Shawn Bradley and Erick Dampier his entire career, and not Shaq and Pau Gasol, that he would still have 5 titles? Doubtful.
Cloud King Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Yes, truly, Tim Duncan's career %TS of .553 makes him a much more efficient scorer than Kobe's %TS of .556
dsong Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:25 am
When it gets right down to it, most fans just want their teams to win championships.

I'm starting to get the feeling that Michael Jordan fans simply hate Kobe and are afraid that if Kobe ends up with more championship rings, it will diminish Jordan's accomplishments.

As a Lakers fan, I hope the Lakers win the Championship this year, and it won't matter whether Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, or Sasha Vujacic is the Finals MVP. Last time I checked, basketball is a team sport.

As for the Lakers right now, Kobe will have to stop taking so many bad shots - he's killing them with low-percentage shots. But Pau Gasol and Ron Artest have to do their part by getting into good scoring positions more often. They're not doing so well in that area lately.
Jason J Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:12 am
As a huge Jordan fan, it bugs me when Jordan fans take a strong anti-Kobe stance. It stinks of paranoia. Kobe's a really fun player to watch, maybe the best hot-streak shooter and tough shot maker I've ever seen.

As a consummate Laker-hater I've never really rooted for Bryant, but I don't see how anyone can fail to appreciate how great he's been. To me he's probably top 10 all time. His metrics stand up pretty well with other guards, and he's shown the ability to change his game over the years.
AYC Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am
If a white, 6'9" small forward put up the exact same stats as Kobe, nobody would compare him to MJ. Just because his game superficially resembles the GOAT doesn't mean he is comparable in effectiveness or production. Ridiculous Lakers fans want to ignore the fact that Kobe just doesn't compare to MJ statistically.
Cloud King Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 11:06 am
NO ONE IS COMPARING KOBE TO MJ

Your bizarre obsession with a player that you haven't been able to see on TV for a decade is quite frankly, sad
Eric Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
#76

You think that the greatest player of all time is a "bizarre obsession" for users of a site devoted exclusively to basketball statistics and trivia?

#67

I would go so far as to say that Kobe is certainly in the top... 99! :D
Cloud King Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Everyone knows MJ is the best, but what are you going to do, watch his youtube highlights all day?

Being unable to appreciate other players greatness because they aren't the greatest ever, and being determined to prove this, is just sad. I don't go to the movies and start complaining that it's not as good as Citizen Kane
AYC Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
"NO ONE IS COMPARING KOBE TO MJ"

Maybe you aren't, but irrational Lakers fans, and the NBA hype machine, do it all the time. Go check out ESPN and the bleacher report for examples (and a good laugh). Just last week, Barkley called him an all-time top 5 player on TNT; that's his job, to hype the current stars.

LA fans love their straw-men; "overrated" doesn't mean bad. Nobody thinks Kobe isn't a great player. But when you point out that stats (the best objective measure we have) don't support the belief that Kobe is a top 10 player, or point out that he played second fiddle to Shaq for his first 8 seasons, they lose their heads. The typical Kobe fan acts like Shaq never even played in LA. Too funny....

"Your bizarre obsession with a player that you haven't been able to see on TV for a decade is quite frankly, sad"

Nice try. Kobe and MJ are both subjects of this post we are responding to; there's nothing bizaare about mentioning either one. FYI, I wasn't a Jordan fan; I actively rooted against all his teams. But I recognize greatness when I see it.
AYC Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
PS Citizen Kane is also overrated....
dsong Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I think we need to distinguish between Lakers fans and Kobe fans.

Lakers fans know that the most important goal is to win the championship this season and the most important statistics reads Boston 17, Lakers 16. We actually care more about Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo than some guy who is no longer in the league.

I could also rail about Walt Frazier & Willis Reed, Larry Bird, Chauncey Billups, or Paul Pierce. It's a pointless exercise. That was in the past - it's over and done with. Just hoping that this season will be a good one.

In the meantime - Kobe, stop taking those contested 20-foot jumpers!
Eric Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
#64

I decided to look at team ORtg and DRtg in terms of standard deviations from the mean (defined for each year). The results of this I think suggest that raw rankings can obscure important information. Here are the totals from 2005 to 2010, in terms of whole standard deviations from the mean:

ORtg:
3: 1 (the 2007 Suns, ironically one of the years Steve Nash *didn't* win MVP)
2: 13
1: 37
0: 72
-1: 45
-2: 12

DRtg:
3: 1 (the 2008 Celtics)
2: 13
1: 36
0: 72
-1: 45
-2: 13

It's really interesting to me that there are exactly as many transcendentally good, elite, average, and mediocre teams, and that there are almost exactly as many good and poor teams. This is almost certainly a coincidence, though, as the year-to-year picture varies substantially. (For instance, in 2010 no team was higher than a 1 on defense. Put another way, the 2010 Bobcats were nowhere near as outstanding a defense as the 2008 Celtics, though of course it is difficult to baldly say which was "better".)

No team made the playoffs with a -2 on defense. The following teams made the playoffs with a -1:

2010 Suns (2 ORtg)
2008 Wizards (0 ORtg)
2007 Lakers (1 ORtg)
2007 Wizards (1 ORtg)
2005 Sonics (2 ORtg)
2005 Kings (1 ORtg)

The 2008 Wizards are especially interesting because they are one of only 2 teams to have an overall negative and make the playoffs, the other being the 2007 Heat (-1 ORtg, 0 DRtg), which brings us to the 2005 Lakers: 1 ORtg, -2 DRtg, overall -1. If, as Walter suggests, we cannot apportion significant blame for defensive failings to a single player, then it would appear that it is unfair to hold the 2005 Lakers missing the playoffs against Kobe Bryant.

That said, I wondered how other 1/-2 teams did. As it turns out, that is a relatively uncommon combination: the 2010 and 2006 Raptors are the only ones who fit the bill. The 2010 Raptors finished 40-42, 1 game out of the playoffs. The 2006 Raptors finished 27-55, 13 games out of the playoffs (and had a certain someone score 81 points on them). The 2005 Lakers finished 34-48, 11 games out of the playoffs. This is also really interesting to me because the 2010 Raptors have such parallels with the 2005 Lakers: a star player without much personal success, in his athletic prime, putting up good but not incredible stats on an otherwise poor team. (P.J. Brown got more MVP votes in 2005 than Kobe Bryant. Isn't that incredible?)

Now, the most obvious suggestion is that had the Lakers played in the East, they would have been able to muster a more respectable finish, but that is probably not the case: in 2005 the Lakers went 13-17 against the East, a mark that prorates them from 34 to 34.6 total wins playing 52 against the East and 30 against the West (which does not take into account that one of the two "road" games against the Clippers that would become an actual road game). Even rounded up to 35, this still leaves them 7 games out.

.

As an aside, this can also be used as excuse ammunition for the Lakers' drubbing at the hands of the Suns in 2007 - it should certainly not be that embarrassing for the most dominant offensive team of the past 6 years to put up 108 points a game against you, especially when they were scoring 110 in the regular season.
dsong Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
2005-2007 were dark years for the Lakers franchise. The emergence of Bynum, the trade for Gasol, and the return of Fisher helped turn things around.

Goes to show that basketball is a team game. Lebron missed the playoffs his first couple of seasons and Jordan played for several losing teams. One player can only do so much; teammates, chemistry, coaching, and officiating all make a huge difference - especially in the playoffs.
Walter Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
#82

Good stuff Eric. I think you helped to validate my point to some extent and that the Lakers defensive short comings were the real driver of them not making the playoffs as they were certainly playoff worthy offensively. Your +1/-2 split supports this and the fact that no -2 team on defense made the playoffs shows that the Lakers weren't alone. The only two teams with an overall negative that made it were teh Wizards and Heat who both significantly outplayed their pathagorean W/L (meaning they were likely a bit on the lucky side to acheive the win total they did) and their pathagorean W/L record would have had them missing the playoffs if they were in the West. I think it is pretty safe to say that the Lakers deserved to miss the playoffs due to their defense.

Interestingly, that season the Lakers were a respectable .500 team in March. They were 33-29 scoring 98.7 pts per game and giving up 99.4. They were essentially average. Then the big injury happened... Odom went down for the year and the Lakers finished the year going 2-19!! During the final 21 games they saw no drop off in offense without Odom (scoring 98.9 pts per game) but their defense gave up 108.2 pts per game!!! When Odom went down it meant Jumaine Jones and Slava Medvedenko became the Lakers best options at the PF spot. These guys simply couldn't defend anyone and the Lakers proceeded to lose.

It should be completely obvious now that it really was the defense that did the Lakers in and defense requires teamwork where as offense can be more individual.

With regards to your opponents PER on 82games.com, while they don't divulge how they determined the exact opposition I wouldn't discard the numbers they provide. You comment on them showing Kobe at the PG and SF positions as a evidence of that the statistics are misleading. What you failed to notice was they they only show him in those match-ups for 1% of the time. Certainly Kobe could have been cross-matched for a few plays during the season.

#65

Neil, you mention that the defense was better when Odom was on the floor than when Kobe was. I think my previous points address much of why that stastic shows that result. Kobe played a quarter of the season with Jones and Medvendenko manning the PF position and neither of them could defend. The Lakers gave up over roughly 9 more points per game during this stretch which impact Kobe's season statistics.

I do agree with you that Odom is often a very underrated defender and many metrics don't seem to give him his full value as a player with length and quickness. He tends to play smart by using his length without fouling, often times holding his arms straight up rather than trying to block a shot. These situations don't show up in any box scores and thus don't show his true value.
Anon Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
With regards to your opponents PER on 82games.com, while they don't divulge how they determined the exact opposition I wouldn't discard the numbers they provide. You comment on them showing Kobe at the PG and SF positions as a evidence of that the statistics are misleading. What you failed to notice was they they only show him in those match-ups for 1% of the time. Certainly Kobe could have been cross-matched for a few plays during the season.

I don't discount the numbers either, and what you provided was certainly helpful. I think the main issue with opponent PER is that it makes the assumption that defense is restricted to one-on-one matchups, which is definitely not the case - defense in basketball is alot more team dependent and help defense is a staple of the sport. Hard to think that a perimeter player was playing above-average defense on one of the worst defensive teams in the league, especially when they're even more dependent on help D than bigs and interior defenders are.

I think the DRtg and DSPM numbers are probably more indicative of how Kobe played on D that season. He played steady defense last season especially in the playoffs, but 06 Kobe wasn't exactly committed to defense especially when he had to shoulder much of the offensive load.
Gil Meriken Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Lamar Odom is an excellent help defender. Observers can learn a lot by "spotlighting" (watching only him) when the Lakers are on defense, and will gain an appreciation of what he does for the team defensively.
Anon Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
By the way, #79 AYC - that was a great post. Well said.

See, we can agree on something after all.
Eric Says:
December 11th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
#84

Thanks! I wanted to clarify one thing:

"You comment on them showing Kobe at the PG and SF positions as a evidence of that the statistics are misleading. What you failed to notice was they they only show him in those match-ups for 1% of the time. Certainly Kobe could have been cross-matched for a few plays during the season."

My point was not so much that Kobe being at PG/SF is questionable - I have no doubt that Kobe spent significantly more than 1% of the time defending the opposing PG or SF depending on who they were. My point was that I'm not sure that's what the 82games statistics even mean. How do they decide when Kobe is playing SF on offense OR defense? What if both teams are playing a three guard lineup? What if they're playing the 2005 Celtics and Kobe is involved in doubling Paul Pierce? There's too much I just don't know about what 82games is doing in this particular area to reasonably evaluate their methodology.

I love 82games for on/off court stuff specifically because it is so clear what they are measuring, and because it is so clear what additional information has to be taken account to get a good evaluation from those numbers. By-position PER just doesn't have the same crispness.
Seif-Eldeine Says:
December 11th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Wow, what a great comment Eric! I have yet to read the article and hope to get to it soon (especially after reading your comment) but I think your comment lends itself as evidence to another way the modern game has really changed basketball: move and replace offensive sets have really blurred the line about how we determine players' positions. For instance, this season Rondo usually brings the ball up and runs the offensive set, but there are a good number of times where when the primary option is not there Pierce or Garnett gets the ball at the top of the key (although this happens much less often than it did in the past.) What do you consider Pierce and Garnett in these circumstances? They are being defended by forwards, but technically they are playing the point as they are at the top of the key. I would love for you, Eric, to expand on your thoughts a little more and hopefully I will be able to get a better reference point when I am able to read the article in its entirety.
robinred Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 4:05 am
What the AYCs of the world will never get is that they are the flipside of the guys on the Laker blogs. Just as mouthy and just as irrational--and just as obsessed. Sort of like Bill Simmons without the big paycheck.

I am a Laker fan--have been since age 6.

Jordan was better.
AYC Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Thanks Anon, but where's the fun in agreeing?

Robinred, if you can point to comment I made that's "irrational", please do. Am I "obsessed" with Kobe? Nah, we are ALL talking about Kobe because he's the flavor of the moment right now; that's what happens when your team makes the finals 3 years in a row. 6-7 years ago, Shaq was the flavor of the moment. Back then LA fans and the hype machine were declaring Shaq an all-time top 5 player, and maybe the greatest big-man ever (with alot more statistical justification, I might add). Now, supposedly knowledgable fans are claiming Shaq isn't even top-ten. That's a function of him playing so long past his prime.... It takes some time to develop a proper perspective; my prediction is that 30 years from now, Lebron, Shaq and Timmy will all be more highly regarded
Eric Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
#89

Thanks! What really got me thinking about these kind of issues was a player mentioned in #91: Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan is described as a power forward, a center, or even a PF/C. People often cite his playing next to David Robinson as evidence of being a power forward, but this only shuffles the issue: how can we say David Robinson is definitely a center if we can't say Tim Duncan is definitely a power forward?

The issue is muddiest between PF and C, but it's a pretty prevalent ptroblem. There are some statistical trends that hint at an objective way to define positions, some that we would expect like more blocks/rebounds/fouls and less assists/steals going from 1-5, and some that are a little more interesting like percentage of rebounds that are offensive, but all of these lead to the somewhat uncomfortable reality of having two "centers" on the court at once, or three "shooting guards".

There's also the question of what strategy, if any, the coach is running: a point guard in the triangle offense is not the same as a point guard in D'Antoni's Phoenix offense, or Sloan's offense, or what passed for Mike Brown's offense - of course, how could they be? As a coach, the job is to get the most out of the talent you have. If Steve Nash has a significantly different skill set than Derek Fisher, it only makes sense that his role in the offense would be significantly different. As such, if you are the fellow assigned to guard Nash one night and Fisher the next, I don't think it is reasonable to simply average the two as "point guards" if they are not doing similar things.

.

All of this makes me uncertain that any defensive measurement from box scores or conventional play by play is doomed from the start to approximation and guesswork. If I don't see who Kobe is guarding, it's a good guess to pick who is nominally the shooting guard on the other team (as opposed to the center, for instance), but it's only a guess, and if the other team appears to have two or three shooting guards on the court at once, I'm completely flummoxed.

On top of all this, what if Kobe (or any perimeter defender) was told he would have interior help, and the help was absent? Put the other way, say Kobe is playing with Hakeem or Dikembe, or some all-time shotblocking great. Should Kobe get credit if whoever he is guarding eschews driving? Should we go the DRtg route and average team defense over 5 people? Questions I do not have satisfying answers to.
Seif-Eldeine Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Wow, Eric, another great comment! Would you be at all interested in writing about this topic as a guest writer on my blog? I am sure my readers would love to hear your opinion. You can e-mail me at [email protected].

« BBR Mailbag: Most One-Dimensional Players

NY Times: Why the Knicks Are Winning »