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.

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

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

Jordan was better.

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.

See, we can agree on something after all.

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.

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.