ESPN Top 100 list

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Just wanted to add this into this thread for cross comparisons on all the lists.

http://www.backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/

Bringing this back up, originally posted for us by "Yeah... THAT Guy" but I've now finally read the breakdowns for every player posted, as well as some of his other info and graphs I could find on his twitter, and a podcast he did on the best scorers, and this is by far the most in depth analysis of player ability and value that I have ever seen. Really beautifully done. The work he, and whoever else, put into all of this info is just mind blowing.

Maybe not quite for those of you who don't love when people go so in depth with stats and analytics, but for those who aren't reading for that reason I would like to say that these break-downs are MUCH more closer to what the "eye test" would be than your typical counting and advanced stats. Many of these breakdowns are more of a player tracking dynamic, meaning it factors in that 20ppg from one player might not be the same as 20ppg from another, good assist numbers don't always reflect good passing, etc.

Only thing I dislike is that this is a career ranking, I would be much more interested on a list that compared players at their prime or peak rather than the entirety of their career. He touches on that in a number of these breakdowns, but it would still be nice to see a list that was built leaning more so on those measures.

Favorite thing about the list is it is narrative, award, championship, etc free and therefor largely un-biased in that regard. Also breaks down players on a more impact level scale with each measure largely factoring in that basketball is played 5 on 5 rather than 1 on 1. Paints a really solid picture of how "good" someone is at basketball relative to also making their teams good in the process.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Posting this as a comparable list to the ESPN and SLAM lists. This one is from RealGM:

2017 List
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. Clyde Drexler
34. Rick Barry
35. Gary Payton
36. Artis Gilmore
37. Jason Kidd
38. Walt Frazier
39. Isiah Thomas
40. Kevin McHale
41. George Gervin
42. Reggie Miller
43. Paul Pierce
44. Dwight Howard
45. Dolph Schayes
46. Bob Cousy
47. Ray Allen
48. Pau Gasol
49. Wes Unseld
50. Robert Parish
51. Russell Westbrook
52. Alonzo Mourning
53. Dikembe Mutombo
54. Manu Ginobili
55. Chauncey Billups
56. Willis Reed
57. Bob Lanier
58. Allen Iverson
59. Adrian Dantley
60. Dave Cowens
61. Elvin Hayes
62. Dominique Wilkins
63. Vince Carter
64. Alex English
65. Tracy McGrady
66. James Harden
67. Nate Thurmond
68. Sam Jones
69. Kevin Johnson
70. Bob McAdoo
71. Sidney Moncrief
72. Paul Arizin
73. Grant Hill
74. Bobby Jones
75. Chris Bosh
76. Tony Parker
77. Shawn Marion
78. Hal Greer
79. Ben Wallace
80. Dan Issel
81. Larry Nance
82. James Worthy
83. Chris Webber
84. Rasheed Wallace
85. Dennis Rodman
86. Horace Grant
87. Elton Brand
88. Terry Porter
89. Maurice Cheeks
90. Carmelo Anthony
91. Tim Hardaway
92. Jack Sikma
93. Billy Cunningham
94. Mookie Blaylock
95. Chet Walker
96. Kawhi Leonard
97. Vlade Divac
98. Bill Walton
99. Connie Hawkins
100. Mel Daniels

My first time really looking at this list, I posted it originally to give a comparison to the others but hadn't really looked through it.

First glances and to me what pops out more than anything is Zo and Mutombo both seem REALLY high. Especially Zo, considering his "peak" isn't really THAT great but he also doesn't have the lengthy career like Mutombo due to all the injuries. So he really in my eye doesn't quite stack up regardless of which side of the spectrum you were basing your decision on.

After that, very surprised to see Elton Brand, Terry Porter, Ben Wallace, Mookie Blaylock, Vlade Divac, maybe a couple others on this list. Not that they aren't good players, but just at a glance without over thinking it they just look out of place on a top-100.

Glad to see Horace Grant crack the list, I've been vocal in the past with my feelings towards him being one of the most impactful and underrated players of his decade.

Also glad to see a list push Bill Walton back so far. His career just isn't anything close to a top 100 career. Definitely could have been, but he IMO doesn't have the body of work in his NBA career alone. That said, I'm ok with his brief healthy period landing him somewhere in the back 5 or honorable mention, because when on the floor it's clear he wold have finished well up somewhere in the top half.

I feel like maybe the opposite of "recency bias" is penalizing Kevin Durant a bit on this list. I know people love to play the "let's wait and see game" but it's not like this guy has only played 5 seasons still. He's up to 11 now.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Alonzo Mourning was strictly a power center. He was an okay rebounder and an intimidating shot-blocker and would generally play in a frenzy. He was so aggressive though that he frequently abandoned his assigned rotations in search of blocks. On offense he favored jump hooks and put-backs. His jumper from around 15 feet was heavy and erratic. Plus, he was a turnover looking for a place to happen. His consistent failures in clutch situations, unfortunately, is the story of his career.

Mutombo was a more disciplined defender than Zo was. Better positional post defender (one of the better ones in history at that). He was more attendant to his baseline rotations. His rebounding was much better than Mourning's. Dikembe had even fewer offensive moves than Zo did, some stiff hook shots but mainly scored on putbacks. He was a terrible passer and would gum up an offensive attack.

Brand was a pivot-bound 'four' man who required considerable ball time. Powerful and tricky in the shadow of the rim. Not a good passer but a good rebounder who worked harder for offensive rebounds than defensive ones. Since he was relatively slow afoot his defense was never up to par.

Terry Porter was a very good point man but played at a period in time that was rich with outstanding points. He got lost in the mix a bit. An outstanding floor-general and a terrific passer. He was a tough and tricky lane penetrator and he could pull-up and hit jumpers going left or right. He was a very good three-baller. Defense was less than average but point is always the toughest position to defend.

Ben Wallace was a rebounder and defender extraordinaire in the Mutombo mold. Wallace was quicker and more aggressive than Mutombo but since he was only about 6-7 he could be overwhelmed by the gargantuan centers. Wallace did play better at home than he did on the road.

Blaylock was a highly aggressive defender but gambled for steals too much which compromised his team's defensive balance. He lacked the necessary charisma that a great point needs to lead a club. During his time in Atlanta, instead of running through Coach Lenny Wilkens' beautifully choreographed sets Blaylock would just milk high screen/rolls to death.

Divac was the consummate passer, one of the best passing centers in history. He was massive but rarely played up to his full strength since he was soft around his edges. His failures in the clutch are well-known by most NBA fans.

I like Horace Grant too. A truly great positional post defender. Quick and sure on his baseline rotations. A terrific rebounder. Very reliable shooter from around the foul-line. A winner.

Walton was really something to see in his prime. He was 6-11 but could run and jump with anyone. He simply didn't miss defensive rotations and was the best passing center the league has ever seen. He totally understood every aspect of the game. That 77 Portland team was most memorable indeed.

Durant is an easy Hall of Famer for me. An incredible point-maker who will routinely take and make clutch shots. He always plays with intensity and has worked very hard to improve on his weaknesses earlier in his career (court-vision, strength, overall defense).

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

So piggy backing off the backpicks article article I found a common theme in his metrics was using a per 75 possessions value for most of the major statistical categories. This is because that is around the average-ish an elite level player would get in today's game. Looking at this brings us a much more accurate measure than say a per 36 stat would, considering a per 36 stat still doesn't account for pace being higher/lower.

Average league pace last season was about 97. So (97/48)36 gives us about 73 possessions a game from players who play 36 minutes a night. Meaning we can basically adjust for pace AND per 36 by using a 75 possessions adjustment measure. Using this same metric (since pace is a stat that carries from the 60's forward) we can get a decently accurate measure of what past performances would look like under a equal playing field in terms of pace and minutes. Meaning we can normalize Wilt's 131 pace and 48.5 minutes per game into something much more comparable to a post merger player.

Obviously this wouldn't be 100% accurate, but this also doesn't assume any player would be better or worse playing in a separate era due to rules, competition, etc. This eliminates much of the hypothetical and guessing game. But from what I can tell, this might be the closest we can come to getting a better read on some numbers while keeping the error rate between them relatively low. For example, in the past adjusting Westbrook's pace to Oscar's he was at something insane around 45+/15/15, which is highly unlikely that he could play at that pace, the way he plays now, for 40ish minutes a night. The error curve there seems much larger that it would be bringing players to a per 75 possessions metric, considering everything post merger doesn't deviate from that TOO MUCH despite different rule changes and play styles.

Couple of examples would be:
Oscar's triple-double year - 19-20ppg, 7ish apg, 8ish rpg
Wilt's monster year - roughly 29ppg, 14ish rpg


Obviously this can't be 100% accurate, but still gives us about as good, and fair, of a measure that we could ask for given the data available. It's nice to have something that at least hints at a more equal field other than something along these lines "Wilt averaged 50 then and would get 75 today because no bigs".

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Couple of examples would be:
Oscar's triple-double year - 19-20ppg, 7ish apg, 8ish rpg
Wilt's monster year - roughly 29ppg, 14ish rpg


Obviously this can't be 100% accurate, but still gives us about as good, and fair, of a measure that we could ask for given the data available. It's nice to have something that at least hints at a more equal field other than something along these lines "Wilt averaged 50 then and would get 75 today because no bigs".

Oscar, being 6-5 and 220 pounds, would still have enormous physical advantages over today's points which means he could post up on the baseline at will. Since he was such a perfectionist he would probably become a reliable three point shooter too. It isn't a stretch to think he could average a triple double.

Wilt would average about 28 points per game built mostly on putbacks. Wilt hated to roll after setting a screen though so that play would be out with him. Today's defenses can do a lot of stuff to stymie a big man so he might have a tough time getting his finger roll off cleanly. The key would be his fadeaway bank shot though. It was totally unstoppable and Wilt was surprisingly reliable with it.
Rebounding numbers? Well, Wilt was much quicker off his feet than many people suspect and he was the second strongest man to ever play in the NBA (behind Shaq). I believe he would average closer to 20 rebounds per game.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Rebounding would be really tough to gauge with the differences around the league. Most of the bigger guys physically (Jordan, Drummond, etc) post really strong numbers due to the lack of other true bigs and lack of big interior 4's so I think Wilt could definitely hit a boost in that regard. But the wider lane, longer rebounds, less chances could take a hit against him as well. League average was roughly 143 available rebounds per game that particular season, compared to about 87 today. Pace adjustment was massive in that aspect, along with slightly lower shooting percentages and A LOT more missed free throws. Plus his average is accounting for the fact that he's playing 48 minutes a night as well. Would be interesting to see if the standard 36-40ish mpg over the past 20 years or so would allow him more energy to focus on the boards a bit more as well, something it's difficult to account for. Seems like a lot of the higher rebound % numbers correlate strongly to guys who weren't playing nearly 40 minutes a night, seems like the lower 30's are where a lot of the stronger all-time rebounders per minute fall.

With that said Wilt's actual rebound percentage for his own playing time isn't really that dominant in comparison to a lot of players. His 26 per game out of the available 143 is only about an 18% total rebound rate. That's still really good, but as a comparison falls outside the top 100, which is still somewhere in the 90th percentile regardless. That could take a bump up if we are talking playing today (see Jordan and Drummond at 25-26%), but even across other eras Rodman is at 26%, Moses 23%, Ben Wallace 23%, Willis 23%, Tarpley 23%, Camby 22%, Bill Walton 21%, Parish 20%, Clifford Ray 20%) that's a wide range of examples from some of these players best seasons that spans anywhere from the 70's-today. For the most part pretty consistent.

Again, tough to say just how much these type of numbers do translate, but that 18% comes out to anywhere between 14-16 boards a game depending on how you adjust his minutes. Which correlates pretty closely with his per 75 adjustment as well. I'd be comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt and placing him on the upper end of that, but 20 does seem pretty high. 20 boards per 36 minutes would give him a rebound rate just over 30%, topping the all time high for anyone who's played 2000+ minutes by over 3 points. Dennis Rodman who is around 27% at his best season.

Looking through a list now basketball-reference actually has his TRB% at 18.4% for the 70-71 season, and the following season at 20.1% (this cracks the top 100). These land fairly close to what the stat adjustments above would suggest as well. That's pretty elite level in comparison to most of the great scoring bigs, the guys above that are mostly rebound-only type of players, or guys with outlier seasons.

Tough to normalize all around, because all those extra misses, and missed free throws, could always mean more opportunities that bounced to the opposite side of the rim that Wilt was on, thus lowering his percentage. Definitely not a perfect measurement but still nice to give a workable ball-park for comparing players that doesn't appear to have large error-rates or massive guesses to fill in the holes.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Wilt would routinely be playing 40 minutes per game nowadays. His endurance was very impressive. Another factor was that he was rarely ever in foul trouble, averaging 2.0 fouls per game despite averaging 45.8 minutes.

He was truly a marvel. Incredible length with monstrously strong hands. He was so quick off his feet that he could wait until the shot was released before attacking it. Once in a lifetime player.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Posting this as a quote from Shaq (did not fact check to see if he actually said it) but "Steph Curry is the best under the rim player of all time".

How do yall feel on that? Understanding it's difficult to compare players across eras and positions/roles, but it seems fitting to me. If we have bigs, and then above the rim types like Jordan, Bron, I'm assuming someone with Magic's size puts him out of what Shaq considers "under the rim" category.. Seems like a good way to classify Steph

[cima]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Posting this as a quote from Shaq (did not fact check to see if he actually said it) but "Steph Curry is the best under the rim player of all time".

How do yall feel on that? Understanding it's difficult to compare players across eras and positions/roles, but it seems fitting to me. If we have bigs, and then above the rim types like Jordan, Bron, I'm assuming someone with Magic's size puts him out of what Shaq considers "under the rim" category.. Seems like a good way to classify Steph

100% correct. Steph Curry is one of the few pioneers who revolutionized and completely changed the game as we knew it from years past.

The game may not necessarily be better now than it was in the past, but it is different and he's the reason why.

So if you don't want to even attribute his style to revolutionizing the modern NBA, we can talk skill; and he's the best shooter of all-time and top 5 in handles. He's also elite at finishing inside the paint. I would say above-average vision and passing but not sure I'd call either elite. Decent defender considering he's not super athletic. Good rebounder in today's game but hard to compare to past eras since guards didn't rebound then like they do now.

Speaking of which, just saw that list you posted and Steph Curry at 29 is a joke; he should be higher. He's closer to top 20 IMO.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Posting this as a quote from Shaq (did not fact check to see if he actually said it) but "Steph Curry is the best under the rim player of all time".

How do yall feel on that? Understanding it's difficult to compare players across eras and positions/roles, but it seems fitting to me. If we have bigs, and then above the rim types like Jordan, Bron, I'm assuming someone with Magic's size puts him out of what Shaq considers "under the rim" category.. Seems like a good way to classify Steph

A lot of great players were not superior athletes. Larry Bird, Willis Reed, and Dolph Schayes are just a few that come to mind.

Limiting a list like that to smaller men I would probably single out John Stockton as the best under the rim guy. His game had no glaring holes. He was the best pure point guard ever.

I wouldn't call Curry the best shooter of all time. He does shoot from 30 feet more consistently than anyone I have ever seen though and his shot release is quicker than everyone except Drazen Petrovic.

Curry is so quick and his handle so accomplished that he can routinely penetrate to the rim. Guys like Calvin Murphy (too small) and Chris Mullin (too slow, no handle) couldn't do that. Those guys were more consistent shooting from the perimeter which I classify as beyond 15 feet.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Speaking of which, just saw that list you posted and Steph Curry at 29 is a joke; he should be higher. He's closer to top 20 IMO.

That list in particular I know is heavily weighing their whole career.. That's where it gets tricky with guys who are still playing, plus it's a list from June of 2017, he had only played 8 season, with only 3-4 of them being "prime level" years.

ESPN's list had him at 23, SLAM's list had him at 19, and the back picks article has him at 32nd - but that article is also a career based list not peak, it's a narrative/award ignoring list, and it was written using data from before last season so as of the end of 2017 season. The writer of that article credits Curry with a top 5 offensive peak of all-time, and said that with another good season (2017-18 season) he would likely jump into the 20's.

[ojandpizza]

ESPN Top 100 list

Spoiler

Kobe did take plays off on defense (no player in history besides MJ went all out on both ends consistently) and didn't always attend to his defensive rotations. But when Kobe turned the switch (especially in important playoff games) he was the best man to man defender in the game. His lateral quickness was outstanding and he had the willpower to dodge screens. At his best, Kobe could play shutdown defense against point guards and both wing positions.

Kobe had a terrific middle game with a vast arsenal of pull-up jumpers. In the clutch (last 8-10 minutes or so) he could beat you in a number of ways. From a jumper with a defender hanging on his shooting arm to a creative pass. He could come down with a traffic rebound or rescue a loose ball. He had that stopper mind set where he could really bear down in the big moments and get the solo defensive stop.

Numbers do not capture the heart of the game and are merely a marginal guide. The ultimate function is to win Championships and Kobe did provide vital and irreplaceable contributions to five Title teams.

I agree that Kobe could revert to selfish play more often than you would like but he did sublimate his ego long enough to achieve glorious success.

Ranking the best non-bigs. MJ was much stronger than Kobe, handled better in a crowd, played more consistent defense, and didn't free-lance on the court as much. MJ was the most perfect player ever.

Oscar Robertson was also much stronger than Kobe (and MJ for that matter). He was a better passer, post up scorer, rebounder, and played more consistent defense than Kobe. Put him number two behind MJ.

LeBron's biggest edge over Kobe is his power and size which makes him even more versatile. LBJ's skills are more team oriented than Kobe's were. Maybe give LeBron the slight edge.

Tough to give Magic and Bird the edge over Kobe. Magic really couldn't hit shots from beyond 15 feet for long stretches of his career and played shamefully poor defense.

Bird lacked the otherworldly athleticism of a Kobe Bryant which meant that he couldn't guard anybody one on one (until the clutch when he did everything right).

But all those guys were so great. It is tough messing with legends.

Spoiler

It's not about him taking plays off, like you said no player in history goes all out consistently all game every game (and that's including MJ).. It's about his defense as a whole not being quite what it was propped up to be. Kobe's defense early in his career was outstanding. He could usually handle either guard position, had decently quick feet, contested shots, and geared up for all big name opponents.

But his defense dropped as his career progressed. He definitely shouldn't have as many all-nba defensive teams as he does. He was definitely not the leagues best man to man defender. He contested shots well, held position in the post well, and navigated through screens well, but was easily beaten on the drive, an average at best team defender, and his help relied heavily on lots of late over-played possessions where he was more inclined to go for a strip than to actually get in the best positioning.

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/03/01/backpicks-goat-14-kobe-bryant/

The listed article does a fantastic job at breaking down his defense. With real scouted possessions, real stats, real video scouting reports. I don't think it gives him enough credit for his ability to navigate through screens and contest shooters though. So I wouldn't agree with it whole-heartedly. But it's still extremely detailed.

It's also worth noting that statistically Kobe ranks out as an average to slightly above average defender throughout his career. Stats can be funny in a way as they don't always paint the right picture (like Kawhi having that year a couple seasons ago that didn't portray him to be a great defender).. But these aren't outliers like a one-off type of season. This is his entire career, 20 years worth of data that doesn't have to be manipulated or guesstimated since his entire career came in the data ball era. Obviously Kobe is a better than average defender, but definitely still a large step down from great like Jordan. Much less specialist defenders, or highly versatile players who defend a multitude of positions and help strategies, and if we are going "All-Time" well below the impact felt from good defensive bigs.

Kobe doesn't rank in the top 250 in defensive +/-, or defensive rating. He does in win shares, but he's also played 20 season (win shares are a running total).. Now these are stats dominated by bigs, so it's not realistic to think he should be up in the 90th percentile or anything. But for comparison Jordan, Bron, Magic, Bird, they are all on that list. And while Kobe's 20 year career gets him on the defensvie win shares list he single best season would not crack a top 250 season. Meanwhile Bird cracks the list 6 times, Jordan 3, LeBron 2, Magic obviously not on the list. In fact, if you manually run a list, and this only includes players who played at least 1000 minutes so theoretically knocks a lot of guys off the original list (example being LeBron's best year jumps from 102 to 92) Kobe's single best year ranks 561st all-time... Even Magic was able to crack at least one top 500 season.

Those aren't end all be all stats, but 250+ players ahead, and for not a single season was his defense ranked out that highly, 20 seasons worth of production.. It's not an anomaly, it's consistent. Difference being, those guys even a not so great man defender like Bird, have values that made their teams defenses perform better. We saw that from the instant Bird entered the league to when he left, same with impacts Jordan and Bron have had in their primes, Magic's teams as well to a lesser extent. Kobe's defensive production on the other hand plummets when he doesn't have a great defensive unit behind him. Rather than Kobe's defense boosting the teams defense to levels it wouldn't other wise be, the team's defense boosted Kobe's defense. This is reflected in stats, it's reflected in voting (the stretch without Shaq Kobe went from getting a few DPOY votes to getting none in 2004/2005, none in 2005/2006, and 1 non-first place vote in 2006/2007).. So even the voters knew whether they realized it or not. Kobe again started getting votes when they had Gasol and Bynum, meanwhile the Lakers ranked first in the league in defensive errors yet were the best in the league at teams scoring rate on those errors. This due to having great rim protection obviously.. (this is a direct 1:1 correlation with my previous mention of Kobe prone to allowing blow bys and his defensive stats/recognition being valued much higher when he has rim protection).

Comparatively speaking, of all guards, guard-forwards, and forwards who averaged 25+ppg (a better read specifically on 2-way players, and most non bigs) Kobe's best year ranked by defensive rating is ranked 58th on his career. The more comparable players this is behind is West, Big-O, Jordan, Bron, Wade, KD.. For the same group his best season defensive box +/- is 77th among those players, and his career ranks 20th (it's actually negative, changed ppg to 20+ because the career 25+ list is very small), and among the same group his defensive win shares rank 8th (again this continue to tally so 20 seasons worth of Kobe defense is worse than 15 LeBron seasons, 13 Jordan seasons, etc)... Also since they overlap a good bit, it's worth noting that Kobe is in this position despite playing on good defensive teams for a good chunk of his career, and LeBron is where he is although playing on some notoriously bad defensive teams. Jordan, Bird obviously gain a few points by playing on some all time great defensive units. (These are numbers that are consistent with where he ranks amongst the same group for playoffs as well).

As far as Kobe ramping up his defense in the playoffs, that's absolutely true. But it's also true for any other top 20 All-Time level player as well. I mean guys don't get into this discussion by not competing at a high level in the playoffs. But who is Kobe really keying on here. It's easy to say "he played better defense in the playoffs" without mentioning he's succeeding on players like Kerry Kittles, Doug Christie, Mark Jackson, Terry Porter, Raja Bell.. He played great defense on Rajon Rondo and Damon Stoudamire... But it's Rondo and Stoudamire. He was also taken off of Iverson, Billups won finals MVP with Kobe as his primary, Pierce won finals MVP with Kobe on him most possession, Kobe wasn't making the switch to shut down guys like Nash or Kidd, etc..

All that about defense and I didn't even plan on commenting on his defense before your post lol. Again not to say he's not a good defender, he is absolutely. But when you start talking all time greats you have to get to the point where you nit-pick to find differences. And, good on ball defender or not even best in the league or not (which I 100% disagree on), there are plenty of other guys on this top whatever's list that provided a bigger defensive lift to their teams defense than Kobe did. Backed by nearly ever measure we have to measure it by. And that's not a slight to Kobe because it's an elite list, but realistically notch below the top few and not good enough to propel him over some other players strengths.


Off the defensive spill and on to what I originally had to say. I've always been firm that I thought Kobe was a tad in the overrated notch while playing, but I have stated here numerous times now that I feel as if many NOW actually seem to underrated him a lot for the player he was. But I've always been strong in my stance that his game, in terms of how it made his team perform, was a bit shallow in comparison to some of the other all time greats. And after that short list of guys my hardest decision on ranking him is how much value I give his rings, and his peak/longevity vs the group that left. I've always said that like lands him (for me) somewhere in the 8-13ish range of all players all time.

I'm also of the opinion that most all-time great level players can win a ring if the team is good enough to win. So for me there isn't a massive difference in someone like Big O having one ring, Kobe having 5 rings, or Bill having 11 rings. If I'm going to rank players I'm going to base them on how well they played and how that translates to how their teams played. You can be the best, most-impactful, player and play well enough to win a champions and still not win the championship. Comparatively speaking you can play at an MVP-like level and still not win the award. Awards and accolades are great, and that's what everyone plays for, but they don't necessarily make you better than someone who doesn't have them. Meaning that, as an example, just because they both happened to win a championship doesn't mean that championship relied as heavily on Kobe's play as it did on Magic's play. And that just because you can name more "things" Kobe did well (like defense and jump-shooting) definitely doesn't mean that the things Magic did well didn't impact the team performance more. Most metrics we have to gauge such values state the opposite, and even if you wanted to ignore those numbers entirely the levels Magic propelled them to as a rookie and then still managing to orchestrate a finals bound team without Riley, Kareem, Cooper, and an injured Worthy is enough of an "eye test" to see his impact.

Where ranking Kobe all time gets a bit difficult is when his name starts getting mentioned with Jordan, Bron, Magic, etc. It's easy to point out, "well Kobe could do this, and this, and this". Every top-level player has a list of this, this, and this that they were great at. 8 good traits from one player might equal out to the impact of 6 good traits from another even though technically we can say "8 things > 6 things". Just listing everything he is good at, while accurate, doesn't really do other players their justice or represent the full outcome. And even if we gave Kobe equal offensive ability to Jordan, his shot selection and decisions as a result ranks him out closer to a Melo or Nique (much better still) than it does a Jordan or KD. So simply saying he's good at this, and this, and this, isn't the full circle.

Just looking at some of Kobe's advanced metrics, I know not everyone loves these but at least keep in mind how consistent they are, it's not so much of if you believe in the stat or not it's how they all tell the same story and coincide with one another. At some point they become more than just a "marginal guide" when they keep ending at the same point. Even even here the difference isn't exactly a marginal one.

In career PER Kobe ranks 25th All-Time (his best season is 70th), his value over replacement player is 17th All-time(his best single season is 93rd All-time) Keep in mind VORP is a running total, so 20 seasons of Kobe is a 72 while 15 seasons of LeBron is 126, 13 seasons of Jordan 104,etc. Kobe is right below Shaq, a couple points ahead of Pippen. His offensive box plus minus is 16th all time just a tick below Reggie Miller (more on that in a bit), his overall box +/- is 38th all time (it's also less than half of Jordan and Bron's) and his best season ranks 190th, his career win shares is 18th all time (over a hundred less than Kareem's) about 2 points less than Reggie Miller his best season ranks 115th, his offensive win shares rank 13th all time his best season 87th, his offensive rating is 165th all time although that heavily favors efficient bigs and high assist guards but it still ranks behind guys like MJ, Bron, KD, Steph, Bird, Reggie, Dirk as well, his best season there doesn't crack the top 250 all-time and all the aforementioned players make that list at least once.

Do those type of stats "tell all", absolutely not, definitely not the gospel. But the other players you expect to be in the top tier are actually in the top tier. And it's not for lack of comparable usage. Kobe has the 4th highest usage rate of all time, the 3rd highest field goal attempts of all time. Comparatively speaking we are trying to make him a top 10 player when he doesn't have a single advanced metric that makes him a top 10 player, not even for a single season much less on his career. This goes back to when I said his game was a bit shallow in comparison, and these numbers likely don't even depict how high pre-merger guys would also be on these lists. This is why he's so difficult to rank compared to many others. Every other top tier player ranks out as a top tier player, if not on their career at least for a few seasons. Kobe doesn't in either. Are we to believe he's the only outlier? The eye tests tells us he's at that level, his overall skill set and abilities tell us he's at that level. There is just a massive grey area with him, like I said makes him difficult to place.

Let's forget all-time, different teams, rules, etc. In Kobe's career against his own peers he's never been the best in the league at any of those advanced categories. To put in to perspective he overlaps both Jordan and LeBron some, Jordan has led the league in one of those advanced metrics 45 times, LeBron has done it 40 times. This is why Kobe has one MVP award, he's not been the single most valuable player at any measure of the game at any point in his career. Most metrics elude to Duncan, KG, Kidd, Dirk often times being more valuable to their team, as well as a very young LeBron surpassing him in most levels very early in his career. Although we know that isn't always the case, but still blurs the lines of Kobe's impact a bit.

On the MVP topic, it's not my opinion that winning the award is necessarily the deciding factor. As mentioned before you can play at an MVP level and not win the award due to someone else playing at an MVP level. Kobe has 11 season finishing in the top 5, which is comparable to most of the other guys not named Kareem, Bron, Jordan.. Overall Kobe ranks 10th all time in MVP award shares, about half as many as Jordan and LeBron who are 1 and 2... Again MVP is a vote which is not at all the measuring stick.. But once again it's consistent. The top 10 is Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Russell, Shaq, Malone, Duncan, Kobe, and Wilt is at 11th... Which is probably the close to expected result other than Malone. So again if everyone else ranks out as expected are we to assume Kobe is just the outlier?

Rather than just all players, or advanced stats, or MVPS, or counting stats, what about just in comparison to other great scorers. - For this I'm adjusting the stat to show "per 75 possessions" rather than a per 36 or per 100, or manually adjusting. At last years pace a player who played 35-38 minutes would have been right around 75 possessions a game. So adjusting to a per 75 level adjusts for both minutes and for pace, which puts players on as close to level playing field that we have.

For this I'm running all players who played at least 1000 minutes (so we can weed out the guys who barely played but have crazy per minute numbers) and who averaged 25+ points per 75 possessions (this is top end scoring)... This will only have post-merger players I'm not going back to manually adjust the rest for a Kobe-topic. So keep in mind some elite scorers are missing.

Only 17 players have a career average of 25+ per 75. Plenty of other have their peak years in this group, but not their entire career average. But of that 17 Kobe ranks 5th all time, elite in raw output. If you sort that group by FG% Kobe is 14th, if you sort it be eFG% he's also 14th. Among the league's elite scorers he's among the groups least efficient. Meaning his scoring translates closer to a Melo, Nique, Harden, than it does a Jordan LeBron, Durant, or the efficient bigs. If you sort by individual season Kobe has the second highest points per 75 only behind Jordan in 87 but much less efficient.

But if you take just the group of players who have had seasons of 1000mp and 25+ per 75, and sort it by say PER Kobe's best season ranks 43rd. Sort it by eFG% which keep in mind is an advantage to guards considering it factors 3's are worth more than 2's, it also should give him an advantage over past players like Jordan who he shot better from 3 and made more of them than. His best season doesn't break the top 100 at 170th all time. Sort it by offensive rating he doesn't crack the top 100 seasons either. Sort the group by offensive win shares and his best season is 32nd. Sort by total win shares and it's 45th. Sort by offensive box +/- which should heavily play his favor as a super high usage player, his best year ranks 36th. Sort them by value over replacement player his best year ranks 54th... So even amongst only the leagues elite scorers he doesn't have a single season that measures out with the very elites in terms of advanced impact.

His reputation as a inefficient scoring type isn't just as simple as the eye test or his FG%.. Even ranking him against only elite scorers like himself, most high usage guys like himself, and his best seasons aren't even cracking top 20 season of all time. I'm sure if you asked players from that era who was the hardest player to guard, they would say Kobe. It's because you couldn't take anything away from him, almost to a fault at times. You play perfect defense, he shoots anyways. And he's likely the greatest difficult shot maker of all time, but like that article I posted in the defensive section of my post states, Kobe's scoring rate on contested shots like those (thousands of tracked possessions) yielded less than a point per possession (it was .7 something).. Meaning that even a kick out to a crappy player like Smush Parker analytically maths out to a better shot. This is why Kobe falls behind so many players in so many of these metrics, his play style, while amazing to watch and impossible to defended didn't always translate to making his team perform better nor elevate those around him.

Realistically his style of scoring at his efficiency would put him behind scorers like KD, Jordan, LeBron, Steph, Bird, Dirk, as "non-bigs" in the regular season. And that's his supposed to be biggest strength.

But what about in the playoffs? In the playoffs at points per 75 (I changed minutes played to 200 to weed out early exits) again 17 players hit this mark on their careers. Kobe drops to 11th in points, and is 12th in FG% and eFG%.. His best season is 18th All-time at about 30.5 (this is elite) and his multi-year peak goes from about 2007-2010 where he was a steady 29 over those 4 years. These seasons rank 34th-36th, and 46th all-time. This most closely compares to Reggie Miller (I said I would mention him again) who's best two year peak rates about a point less but on better shooting numbers.. Keep in mind Reggie scoring 23 a game at those paces is roughly 27-28 at today's pace. And he was doing it against those Knicks, Magic , squads in the mid 90s. Reggie's top year at 29 on better shooting also compares closely to Kobe's top year of 30 but was a first round loss so I excluded it.

This isn't a way of saying Reggie needs to be catapulted up to all time scoring status, but just keep in mind he played at a higher level in the playoffs than the regular season, and Kobe's best scoring playoff years are more comparable to years from him or Dirk (maybe even less if you want to factor in efficiency) than they are a LeBron or Jordan scoring level.

Fun tidbit - LeBron actually has the best offensive playoff season of all time (2009) about 36 per 75 on over 60% TS, it ranks first all time sorted by points, by BPM, by OBPM, and by PER.. - But he was playing poor competition so I don't put much stock into that.

But in ranking those playoff seasons, the 25+ years from all players, if sorted by PER Kobe's best season is 46th all time, sorted by VORP 19th all time, sorted by BPM 43rd all-time, sorted by win shares 9th all-time.. All of these cluttered with numerous seasons from Jordan, LeBron, Shaq making up a good chunk of the top seasons. And top years from guys like Dirk, Hakeem, Steph, KD, and a couple Duncan pop-ups. Most other players are just outlier seasons. But Kobe often a healthy chunk behind the elite no matter how you rank them.

And again, that's just a metric that comparing him against scorers post-merger. Forget just all around player, Kobe is realistically just narrowly cracking the list as a top 10 scorer all-time. For just post-merger play he probably misses a top 5 list, but a significant drop from a Jordan or LeBron type of scoring rate/efficiency.

Even excluding all of that, what about just moments/games. We all know Kobe has the 5 rings, he has 3 as a massive but secondary role with Shaq and the other two where in the 5th he only narrowly provided more value than Gasol. Also had a dreadful game 7.. But in all seriousness, where are his "moment" games in the post season. The historic runs, or even singular plays. He had a game winner against Phoenix in an early exit year. I believe a put back against San Antonio if memory serves. But vastly behind plenty of other big moments from guys like Bron, Jordan, Bird, Magic even as a rookie. If you sort by game score Kobe has the 16th best playoff game all time (against Denver), For finals games he has the 32nd best ranked game of all time. In game 7's he has the 72nd best game of all time.. Again it's just his reputation, while great, supersedes the actuality of what we got. Game score means nothing obviously, and was just a throw in for fun simply because his "moments" from my memory don't quite equal his "moments" from what ESPN tells me. But still, no massive moments, not huge game breaking plays in the biggest games, below elite average in all of his game 7's, awful in the game 7 that won against Boston... I realize we can point out instances "well he had a good stop here, hit a timely shot here with 5 minutes left, made a huge pass here" but that's something we can say about every other player in this conversation too. And I know we can point out plenty of low moments for other players, but most of them have high moments that surpass Kobe's.

That's basically my overall Kobe assessment. It's not to say he isn't an all-time great, it's just hard to place a player historically in your top 10 or when no part of his game ranks that highly. He's probably better in the raw sense of what being "better" means than a lot of players in many of these categories, but in almost every way we have to measure his "better" didn't always provide the best benefit to his team. A big chunk of that is indeed shot selection, and a touch of overrated defense.. Many of these numbers are indeed nitpicking, but like mentioned before when you cut the list down to 15 or so players you have to nitpick. I myself have mentioned Kobe to me cracks somewhere between that 8-13ish mark. It really depends where you want to place the most value. He gets a big boost from longevity, playoff runs, rings, accolades, and the fact that he is a good two-way player with a good all around game. But overall he's a tier below the very top rather than someone who's lumped with Jordan.

Edit: Just adding a tidbit to this. It's not that the stats mean everything, and I understand if you're someone who doesn't put full stock into stats and thinks there is tons of wiggle room with them ( I would agree), it's more so that he's just consistently behind the elite groups across the board, for his career and for his peak.

The more telling thing to me isn't necessarily where he places but more so how that compares against Jordan and LeBron. If you look at the top 10, 15, 20 guys of all time, those 3 are really the only 3 who are really high usage wing players. Which makes them more closely comparable than Kobe would be say in relation to a Magic Johnson or Tim Duncan. Not only that but his game in general, position, and size matches Jordan more than anyone, and the back-side of his prime coincides with the early beginning of Bron's it definitely makes both those comparisons even stronger.

Just using playoff PER as a quick example. Kobe on his career ranks 22nd, next to Wade, Kyrie. It's not so much that being 22nd means much, Duncan is only two points higher and is 7th. So there are indeed lots of wiggle room and small differences.. What does stand out however is that the gap between Jordan and Bron (1 and 3 all time) is the same as the gap between Kobe and someone like Lamar Odom and Hersey Hawkins. That and Kobe's best year ranks 101 meanwhile Jordan and LeBron each have two seasons in the top 10, each with 8 seasons higher than Kobe's best season.

And that's the same with pretty much every stat I've broken down in this post. This was just an easy example to show the discrepancy. The idea that he's right up there with those two seems really far fetched in reality which is why I've always said the hard part to me is more so figuring out how I rank Kobe against guys like Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, or way back guys like Oscar and West, and others rather than who he compares to in my top 5.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Spoiler

That is quite a passionate report on Kobe!

Kobe did play much more consistently outstanding defense earlier in his career up until 2003 or so. His foot quickness was absolutely special, rare for a man at 6-7.

All-defense teams, MVP awards, and all the other post season awards are mostly meaningless. However I am inclined to agree with you that Kobe didn't deserve all those citations to the all-defense team post 2002.

As I said, Jordan was much more consistent playing killer defense than Bryant. But when he turned up his defense all the way Kobe was just a slightly worse one on one antagonist. Kobe could be overpowered in a way that Jordan couldn't be.

Instead of measuring cumulative value my contention was that Kobe, at his best, was one of the finest one on one defenders of points and wings in the league.

The fact is that good defense cannot be reduced to an all encompassing number subject to multiplications. Forcing shooters to shoot under pressure, forcing drivers to help spots, rotating to seal holes, ambushing passing lanes, bogarting post players, bumping cutters, and harassing passers to destroy timing is what playing good defense is about. Only the last act of defense, rebounding, can be measured.

A quick look at the top players in defensive plus minus reveals Mark Eaton, Marcus Camby, David Robinson, and George Johnson in the top five. All of them were below average man to man defenders. Shawn Bradley, an awful defender, ranks ahead of Dennis Rodman. It is to laugh.

Bird was a great team-oriented defender who could usually read where the ball was going to wind up on any given sequence. When maneuvered into a solo position though he was hard-pressed to prevent a clean look. Those early 80s Celtics teams featured only Dennis Johnson, Scott Wedman and Kevin McHale as outstanding defenders. Their overall defense wasn't very good. Their ability to control the boards was outstanding though and is why they rank high in defensive metrics.

You are also mistaken in your belief that the Lakers teams from 2008-2010 were outstanding in rotating along the baseline. In fact, Bynum was frequently confused in these rotations and Gasol was only adequate (he was better showing long and wide on high screen/rolls). Lamar Odom was a very inconsistent and unreliable team defender.

Actually from this time period the Celtics and Cavaliers provided much stingier interior defense than the Lakers did.

In the 2001 Finals Kobe did an excellent job of defending Allen Iverson in the opening game. Kobe was such a gifted defender that he could counter Iverson's jab step and still challenge his jumper. Playing hot-footed deny defense and chasing Iverson through a maze of screens negatively impacted Bryant on offense though. It was a savvy move by Phil Jackson to turn over the job of warp speed ball denial to Tyronn Lue.

In the 2008 Championship round Paul Pierce did most of his damage against the inept Vladimir Radmonivic. When Kobe did take the job of guarding Pierce he held more than his own. He did fail to tag Pierce in early offense at times though.

I wouldn't say Kobe was "dreadful" in the deciding game seven in the 2010 championship round. Ray Allen played tough bump and grind defense and the Celtics savvy help schemes limited his scoring output.
Instead, he turned to other parts of the game like rebounding and hitting free throws. After the early action he made smart team oriented decisions and trusted his teammates.

All those number rankings/systems only account for when a player has or is in close proximity to the ball. The fact that they consistently end with the same names at the top doesn't matter if the whole equation is flawed to begin with.

Kobe mostly functioned as the terminator in the Laker's offense. LeBron had more play-making responsibilities and had much more ball time. Both styles can be effective. The truth is though that the triangle offense is a jump-shooting attack and it expects jumpers to be made. There is a little less room for penetration with the bigs squatting near the rim.

Understanding a player's function within his team is more important than the numbers he accumulates. This is the reason why comparing centers to wings and point guards is impossible.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Spoiler

Indeed DBPM is the most flawed stat out of all the advanced stats we have. It's a box score measurement that can do a pretty good job of calculating offense, but is severely lacking on the other end. It does a solid job of account for most aspects outside of screens, spacing, and movement offensively, but defensively it missed out on just about all the things you listed above.

Including it with my post wasn't me trying to say that the numbers are always correct, there are always weird outlier players, but more so to show the consistency in them for most players who belong near the top. Even though the stat fails to reflect the things you mentioned above you have to realize that it's not just short-coming the player that's the topic of discussion but every other player who succeeded in those areas as well. So when the stat fails to give Kobe credit for something it's also failing to give someone like Jordan credit as well.

Outliers like Bradley exist. But also keep in mind that minutes aren't reflected but rather possessions. So 20 minutes of a 4 from a player like Bradley would be less valuable than 40 minutes of a 3 from a player like Rodman. Comparatively speaking most players with a high rate in blk% relative to the rest of the league that season are going to inevitably rank a bit higher than they should. For some great shot blockers it is accurate, for others it is not so much. BPM does credit Rodman as being a great player as his career is a 3.0 overall (5+ is typically elite) in comparison to Kobe's career at 3.9 for example, it just fails to be able to give enough of that credit to the defensive side in his case.

But like I mentioned, I wasn't posting the numbers as a way to say "this is how they rank" but more show to illustrate that even if the numbers are "off" that he in comparison to just those other top 10 or so guys is still consistent across the board. Just glancing at the list for guards, guard-forwards, and forward-guards (MP>1000), there are outliers but the first page has Pippen, Alvin Robertson, Jordan, LeBron, TR Dunn, Danny Green, Giannis, Tony Allen, Doug Christie, Batum, Roberson, Iguodala, Kidd, Harper, Jerry Sloan..

Most guys recognized for defense have at least one season popping up somewhere in the top 200 seasons. But Kobe doesn't, and it's the same with many of those stats. His best year at 252 is still a good year, plenty of good defensive players have seasons that place after that year, but they also have years ahead of it. And career marks higher (Kobe's at 356th).. We recognize the number is flawed, and there are numerous outliers. But it's not an outlier in the sense that say "well 6 of Jordan's years rank in the top 250 but he was also great this year why is it all the way back at 500", that would be more so a flaw in rating a season. At the rate most of these measure out it's to the point where we would have to start considering that all of Kobe's seasons are just outliers that fall into that miscalculated category.

I agree that Kobe ranks out as a better player than the numbers would suggest. Both offensively and defensively. And I agree with you on all his strengths. I guess my disagreement is just by how much better. And I'm 100% not for giving all credit to the numbers, I understand the numbers are more of a reference point than anything. But I'm also not for discrediting them all together, especially when for so many players they seem to be accurate in the ballpark sense. In most cases if you think someone belongs near the top they are near the top, even if someone "worse" ranks ahead of them a top 5 player likely lands in at least the 90th percentile of whatever category you're looking at. In most cases the numbers are off for a couple seasons, or low minutes/impact guys maybe have funky career numbers. It's not often a player with similar minutes, success, usage, shots, points, win%, playoff runs, etc has 20 seasons worth of data that is just substantially incorrect.

The numbers still rank him out very favorably as one of the all time bests. But they do have him substantially behind some of the leagues "tier 1" greats. Which is just something I think I agree a bit more with than you do.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Shawn Bradley could come up with a few blocked shots approaching the ball from the weak-side. But his lateral movement was poor which meant he couldn't guard anyone who could face and go. Taking the ball to his body to cramp his reach and making a tight spin move could burn him too.

Among the wings you listed Michael Jordan, T.R. Dunn, Scottie Pippen, Alvin Robertson, Tony Allen, Jason Kidd, Andre Iguodala, Ron Harper and Jerry Sloan would qualify as truly outstanding defenders.

Some other phenomenal wing defenders would include Michael Cooper, Sidney Moncrief, and Satch Sanders.