2008-2009 NBA Season

[Ren Ying Ying]

zach randolph? forget zach randolph.

Marreese Speights (rookie) is ranked 20th! He is CLEARLY rookie of the year. Heck, he should be an ALL-STAR!

[LuNaR]

zach randolph? forget zach randolph.

Marreese Speights (rookie) is ranked 20th! He is CLEARLY rookie of the year. Heck, he should be an ALL-STAR!

[ChanceEncounter]

Don't bother arguing unless you can explain with your stats why kobe can make 1st defensive team in the past 3 years (voted by head COACHES..unless you can show me otherwise) and lebron gets nada despite putting up better rebound, block, and steal stats. Or what is it now...coaches are biased against "off-ball" defenders or lebron's young age? This isn't about whether kobe or lebron is better, but rather your absurd reliance on stats. just think of kobe and lebron as two players who just happened to be used in the example. don't get sidetracked and don't diverge from the argument.

until you can statistically explain why the coaches would choose kobe, your stat values still mean jack.

I'm sorry if you don't realize that the game is played by people, not the computer.

Yawn. This argument is silly.

So you want to argue that Marcus Camby is a better player than LeBron? Shane Battier? Raja Bell? Kirk Hinrich? Bruce Bowen? Please.

You keep reiterating the same broken point, "save the +/- for fantasy basketball." I ask you, name one league that uses +/- for fantasy basketball. There isn't any. +/- isn't a stat used in fantasy basketball. It's a stat used to measure a player's IMPACT IN A REAL GAME.

You're right. A game is played by people. And people who do MORE to help their team WIN are better players. LeBron does more more than Kobe. Ergo, he's a better player.

By your logic, since Kobe has done WORSE than LeBron as the lead player for his team (last 4 season), LeBron is a better player. What's there left for you to grasp?

ok go explain to me how zach randolph (per ranking 32, mins played 36) is better than pierce of allen and a hell lot of other players in the PER ranking.

if zach randolph's efficiency is SO good, why the hell does the clippers keep losing huh? PER is ONE guideline, not everything. can u get this in ur head?

i know who won the past 10 nba championships, i dont need u to tell me. east won a fair amount, so what, there had been at most 3 competitive team in the east, while everyone in the west is competitive. i never said east didnt have any good teams, i just said it was an inferior conference to west, and since u like ur analysts so much, ask ANY of them and they'll say west is better. that is just straight out fact, i dont know what ur trying to argue.

heres why i think kobe is better. he has a go to move he can use at a daily basis to get you points when u need it the most. he can shoot 3's, free throws, jumpers, post, and defend better than lebron.

lebron is better getting to the rim, and getting rebounds. but he hasnt hit his prime and i understand that.

balancing all that out, i give the edge to kobe. fair enough of an argument?

Did you even read my post?

Obviously not, because all you did is post drivel. I didn't use "one stat" to claim that LeBron is better than Kobe. As I said, ALL of these stats show LeBron better than Kobe:

- More points
- More rebounds
- More assists
- Higher shooting percentage
- Higher efficiency rating
- Higher +/-
- Higher adjusted +/-
- Better stats in the 4th quarter
- Better stats in "clutch" time
- Having a similar record with an inferior supporting cast

ALL of these are in LeBron's favor. Every. Last. One. Is that hard for you to get into your skull?

You can say Kobe is a better shooter than LeBron. And that's true, I agree with you. However, in the scheme of things, LeBron is still a more efficient scorer than Kobe. That means, LeBron scores more points PER SHOT he attempts than Kobe does (1.39 points per shot vs 1.33 points per shot). Thus, Kobe being a better shooter amounts to nothing because the entire point of the game is to put points on the scoreboard. It doesn't matter if you do it from 2 feet away or 30 feet away.

LeBron is better at getting to the rim, he's a more efficient offensive player, he gets more rebounds, he's harder to guard (ask Paul Pierce), he's a better playmaker (Kobe has never had as many assists as LeBron, and he's a guard), and he makes a bigger impact in the scoreboard (you know, where you want to make an impact).

So, how do you "balance all that out" and come out with Kobe is better? Seriously. Some people's logic is just ridiculous.

zach randolph? forget zach randolph.

Marreese Speights (rookie) is ranked 20th! He is CLEARLY rookie of the year. Heck, he should be an ALL-STAR!

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?

I already addressed this.

Uhm... Marreese Speights plays 15 minutes a game. He's not a primary player. A lot of players have good efficiency or stats in limited outtings. We're talking about players with similar levels of floor exposure, in similar roles, and asked to do similar things (carry your team to victory).

-yawn-

You know, if I have to say everything twice, this is just going to take twice as long.

As for Zack Randolph, hooray! In an effort to argue that I rely on one stat, you end up relying on one stat. Bravo!

Where do you find Zack Randolph on this list?

http://www.82games.com/0809/ONSORT6.HTM

Hint: he's not on there. Why? Because he's terrible in +/-. He's a fairly efficient statistical scorer, but his overall floor impact is crap. That's why teams keep losing with him, and that's why he'll never amount to anything.

The opposite is true with LeBron. Not only is he incredibly efficient (at well over 30 PER), he also makes the largest floor impact in the league.

Furthermore, Zack Randolph is the primary option on his team. The Celtics do not have a true #1 (Paul Pierce is the closest to that). The Lakers and Caveliers both have true #1 players in Kobe and LeBron. That's why a comparison of their stats is valid, because the contexts are very similar.

Seriously. If you want to argue the fallability of stats, you have to actually talk about the same stats that I'm using here, geniuses. Talk about Apples to Oranges.

Again, answer the damn question please:

How is a player that is inferior in all of the following a better player than someone superior to all of the following?

- Points
- Rebounds
- Assists
- Blocks
- Steals
- Player Efficiency
- +/-
- Adjusted +/- (Roland Ratings)
- Shooting Percentage
- True Shooting Percentage (including Kobe's superiority in 3 pointers)
- 4th quarter stats and +/-
- Points per shot
- "Clutch" stats

Please tell me. Because if it were any other player, this would be obvious. Evidently, your love for Kobe is blinding you from seeing what is painfully clear. Not only has Kobe done very little as the #1 option on his team (real results, played in games, on actual courts, and not by "computers"), but he's also noticeably inferior to LeBron in most of the above.

But right, I'm overvaluing PER, because Zack Randolph and Marreese Speights have high PER rankings, so of course the entire system is bunk.

You realize you guys just used a textbook exception to the rule fallacy, right?

Ah what the hell, I'm arguing against brick walls. No matter what I throw, you will just avoid, since you're stone deaf.

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/410/stonedeafkp3.jpg')

[ChanceEncounter]

Funny thing is, for all of Kobe's supposed "defensive" superiority, he actually is a POSITIVE defender in terms of floor impact. His defense is +1.2.

That means, over a span of 48 minutes, the opposing team actually scores an average of 1.2 points MORE with Kobe on the court than with him OFF the court. Which just goes to show that being able to lock down your man (and Kobe is no longer a lockdown level defender anymore) does not necessarily translate into the most important thing in the game: scoring more than your opponent.

Again, the results don't lie.

And, I also notice that you conveniently dropped the "West is harder than the East" argument, without conceding it. Because, as usually, you had that charade stuffed in your face.

The opposite is true with LeBron. Not only is he incredibly efficient (at well over 30 PER), he also makes the largest floor impact in the league.

To reiterate, if you think this is one big coincidence, I'm done with this argument. For two years straight LeBron has lead the league in Player Efficiency and Floor Impact. Last year, the Cavs scored roughly the same amount of points as the opponents with LeBron, and a whopping negative ten without LeBron. That means LeBron singlehandedly transformed the Cavs from one of the worst (if not the worst) teams in the NBA, to being a hair short of knocking off the eventual champion Celtics in Round 2 of the playoffs.

Meanwhile, Kobe's team is actually deeper, better, and more talented, and he got raped in 6 games, two of which he was thoroughly outperformed by Paul Pierce (on one leg, no less).

Oh wait, my bad, this was a real life example, not a computer simulation. I'll go back to drawing board with more stats.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Yawn. This argument is silly.

So you want to argue that Marcus Camby is a better player than LeBron? Shane Battier? Raja Bell? Kirk Hinrich? Bruce Bowen? Please.

You keep reiterating the same broken point, "save the +/- for fantasy basketball." I ask you, name one league that uses +/- for fantasy basketball. There isn't any. +/- isn't a stat used in fantasy basketball. It's a stat used to measure a player's IMPACT IN A REAL GAME.

You're right. A game is played by people. And people who do MORE to help their team WIN are better players. LeBron does more more than Kobe. Ergo, he's a better player.

By your logic, since Kobe has done WORSE than LeBron as the lead player for his team (last 4 season), LeBron is a better player. What's there left for you to grasp?

Don't diverge from the argument. Please comprehend the topic before answering with irrelevent excuses. Where have I ever stated that anyone named to All-Defensive team are the best players in the league?

In case you forgot, I'll reiterate my point: All defensive stats from the previous 3 years point to Lebron being a better defender than kobe, yet coaches tend to think otherwise. Where's the explaination for that? Coaches don't understand what stats are? Forget who is the "better player" at the moment. Erase lebron & kobe's name and replace it with person A & person B. Just CORRELATE the STATS.
If you cannot use your stats to explain why, then just pretend you never read this post instead of complaining that you're wasting your time .

If you're going to rely your entire argument on stats, you better proove that stats MEAN something. You better be able to prove or show that better stats ALWAYS = better player. Whether it is overall, offense, or defense.


I'm sure coaches (or journalists for that matter) at least know a thing or two about the game. Perhaps not the expertise level that you have, but i'm sure they know something to stay in the job.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?

No, I'm sorry. I am bad at reading comprehension. I only see numbers and figures because clearly, statistics always dictates the truth. It can tell me everything I need to know about life.

[LuNaR]

Yawn. This argument is silly.

So you want to argue that Marcus Camby is a better player than LeBron? Shane Battier? Raja Bell? Kirk Hinrich? Bruce Bowen? Please.

You keep reiterating the same broken point, "save the +/- for fantasy basketball." I ask you, name one league that uses +/- for fantasy basketball. There isn't any. +/- isn't a stat used in fantasy basketball. It's a stat used to measure a player's IMPACT IN A REAL GAME.

You're right. A game is played by people. And people who do MORE to help their team WIN are better players. LeBron does more more than Kobe. Ergo, he's a better player.

By your logic, since Kobe has done WORSE than LeBron as the lead player for his team (last 4 season), LeBron is a better player. What's there left for you to grasp?



Did you even read my post?

Obviously not, because all you did is post drivel. I didn't use "one stat" to claim that LeBron is better than Kobe. As I said, ALL of these stats show LeBron better than Kobe:

- More points
- More rebounds
- More assists
- Higher shooting percentage
- Higher efficiency rating
- Higher +/-
- Higher adjusted +/-
- Better stats in the 4th quarter
- Better stats in "clutch" time
- Having a similar record with an inferior supporting cast

ALL of these are in LeBron's favor. Every. Last. One. Is that hard for you to get into your skull?

You can say Kobe is a better shooter than LeBron. And that's true, I agree with you. However, in the scheme of things, LeBron is still a more efficient scorer than Kobe. That means, LeBron scores more points PER SHOT he attempts than Kobe does (1.39 points per shot vs 1.33 points per shot). Thus, Kobe being a better shooter amounts to nothing because the entire point of the game is to put points on the scoreboard. It doesn't matter if you do it from 2 feet away or 30 feet away.

LeBron is better at getting to the rim, he's a more efficient offensive player, he gets more rebounds, he's harder to guard (ask Paul Pierce), he's a better playmaker (Kobe has never had as many assists as LeBron, and he's a guard), and he makes a bigger impact in the scoreboard (you know, where you want to make an impact).

So, how do you "balance all that out" and come out with Kobe is better? Seriously. Some people's logic is just ridiculous.



Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?

I already addressed this.



-yawn-

You know, if I have to say everything twice, this is just going to take twice as long.

As for Zack Randolph, hooray! In an effort to argue that I rely on one stat, you end up relying on one stat. Bravo!

Where do you find Zack Randolph on this list?

http://www.82games.com/0809/ONSORT6.HTM

Hint: he's not on there. Why? Because he's terrible in +/-. He's a fairly efficient statistical scorer, but his overall floor impact is crap. That's why teams keep losing with him, and that's why he'll never amount to anything.

The opposite is true with LeBron. Not only is he incredibly efficient (at well over 30 PER), he also makes the largest floor impact in the league.

Furthermore, Zack Randolph is the primary option on his team. The Celtics do not have a true #1 (Paul Pierce is the closest to that). The Lakers and Caveliers both have true #1 players in Kobe and LeBron. That's why a comparison of their stats is valid, because the contexts are very similar.

Seriously. If you want to argue the fallability of stats, you have to actually talk about the same stats that I'm using here, geniuses. Talk about Apples to Oranges.

Again, answer the damn question please:

How is a player that is inferior in all of the following a better player than someone superior to all of the following?

- Points
- Rebounds
- Assists
- Blocks
- Steals
- Player Efficiency
- +/-
- Adjusted +/- (Roland Ratings)
- Shooting Percentage
- True Shooting Percentage (including Kobe's superiority in 3 pointers)
- 4th quarter stats and +/-
- Points per shot
- "Clutch" stats

Please tell me. Because if it were any other player, this would be obvious. Evidently, your love for Kobe is blinding you from seeing what is painfully clear. Not only has Kobe done very little as the #1 option on his team (real results, played in games, on actual courts, and not by "computers"), but he's also noticeably inferior to LeBron in most of the above.

But right, I'm overvaluing PER, because Zack Randolph and Marreese Speights have high PER rankings, so of course the entire system is bunk.

You realize you guys just used a textbook exception to the rule fallacy, right?

Ah what the hell, I'm arguing against brick walls. No matter what I throw, you will just avoid, since you're stone deaf.

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/410/stonedeafkp3.jpg')

lmao ur a dumb@ss, im getting dumber talking to u. im done

[Han Solo]

Stats always dictate the truth?

Haven't you heard of the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"?

Anyway, This NYT article about recent uses of stats by Houston Rockets might be interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ma...t.html?_r=1&em

Han Solo

[ChanceEncounter]

Don't diverge from the argument. Please comprehend the topic before answering with irrelevent excuses. Where have I ever stated that anyone named to All-Defensive team are the best players in the league?

In case you forgot, I'll reiterate my point: All defensive stats from the previous 3 years point to Lebron being a better defender than kobe, yet coaches tend to think otherwise. Where's the explaination for that? Coaches don't understand what stats are? Forget who is the "better player" at the moment. Erase lebron & kobe's name and replace it with person A & person B. Just CORRELATE the STATS.
If you cannot use your stats to explain why, then just pretend you never read this post instead of complaining that you're wasting your time .

If you're going to rely your entire argument on stats, you better proove that stats MEAN something. You better be able to prove or show that better stats ALWAYS = better player. Whether it is overall, offense, or defense.


I'm sure coaches (or journalists for that matter) at least know a thing or two about the game. Perhaps not the expertise level that you have, but i'm sure they know something to stay in the job.

Because you fail to understand that blocks and steals are not "all defensive stats." They are a measure of your ability to play help defense. Higher steal counts are a result of clogging passing lanes, and higher blocks are often from help defense and rotating over to the open man.

That said, being a good defender is one thing, but being a good OVERALL player is what's important. Kobe Bryant is a better defender than LeBron James. I've never stated otherwise. However, LeBron is the more effective overall player. He changes the complexion of the game more than Kobe Bryant does, and he does more to help his team win.

That's why he's a better player. Stats aside.

Because, according to you, all of the following are statistics:

- The Scouting Report
- Team Success the last 4 years
- Conference Strength
- How much trouble each of their teams/players gave the Celtics
- Testimonials of players that guard them (e.g. Paul Pierce, Shane Battier)
- How effective the player looks on the court

Face it, my argument has never been "just statistics." You need to straw man that to be the case just so you can play the "statistics isn't everything" card. As I asked you, multiple times, how is Kobe the better overall player? You can't offer any reasonable, logically objective argument.

And yet, my emperical argument is somehow weaker than your complete non-argument. Ridiculous.

I'll reiterate my point: I've always suggested that LeBron was a better overall player than Kobe, not a better defender. That means, the net sum of each players' offensive and defensive value to his team comes out to LeBron being a better player. In this context, the stats do correlate with the observation. If you take both the PER rating along with the Adjusted +/-, you get a very good sense of who the best players in the league are: LeBron, Wade, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, et cetera. Coincidentally, this just so happens to match the MVP favorites! Who'da thunk that stats could do that, right?

Of this list, LeBron's +/- and PER rating is the best. And, coincidentally, you haven't suggested any evidence as to why taking both the +/- (floor impact) and PER (player efficiency) is a bad example. In both your counterexamples (Speights and Randolph), they either have a.) too small a sample--15 minutes is not starter level minutes or b.) one but not the other (Randolph's +/- is terrible).

Thus, your argument that Kobe being a better player despite what the "stats" say (and if you ask anyone knowledgeable about basketball, they'll tell you that steals and blocks are NOT necessarily your ability to defend) is not a valid argument, because while Kobe may be the better defender, he's not the better overall player.

So in effect, you're trying to counter my claim that LeBron is the better overall player by claiming Kobe is the better defender. Unfortunately for you, Kobe can be the better defender and still be the worse overall player. So your argument is moot. We already know that there is no 'stat' for your ability to lockdown your assignment and play sound defensive basketball. We also know there is no stat to represent 'hustle' plays, such as diving on the floor to save a possession or tapping a loose ball to a teammate, but from eyeballing both players, there is no incredible difference in their level of hustle, and Kobe's overall defensive prowess does not outweigh LeBron's overall value to the team, which we do have stats for.

For the last time, the argument isn't that individual stats prove one thing or another. It's that the sum total of ALL of those stats combined with the players' impact suggests that LeBron is better. By your logic, we can't claim that Michael Jordan is better than Clyde Drexler, because using stats is automatically false!

Again, you haven't picked out any flaws in the use of Roland Rating's adjusted +/-. Is that because you can't, or you would rather isolate individual stats in a failed attempt of trying to make me look bad?

No, I'm sorry. I am bad at reading comprehension. I only see numbers and figures because clearly, statistics always dictates the truth. It can tell me everything I need to know about life.

LMAO. Thanks for the laugh, mate.

Yes, you're bad at reading comprehension because you don't agree with me.

It couldn't possibly be because you blatantly missed what I posted in my previous post. I mean, no way, right?

lmao ur a dumb@ss, im getting dumber talking to u. im done

"ur" the dumb@ss. i asked "u" to answer a simple question, and "u" can't do it. "im" getting dumber by expecting "u" to actually debate intelligently.

How is a player that is inferior in all of the following a better player than someone superior to all of the following?

- Points
- Rebounds
- Assists
- Blocks
- Steals
- Player Efficiency
- +/-
- Adjusted +/- (Roland Ratings)
- Shooting Percentage
- True Shooting Percentage (including Kobe's superiority in 3 pointers)
- 4th quarter stats and +/-
- Points per shot
- "Clutch" stats

Stats always dictate the truth?

Haven't you heard of the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"?

Anyway, This NYT article about recent uses of stats by Houston Rockets might be interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ma...t.html?_r=1&em

Han Solo

Do you have statistical experience, Han Solo?

First off, certain statistics can stretch the truth. Certain cases within statistics can run contrary to the truth (Simpsons' Parodox, for example). Certain uses of statistics can lead to incorrect conclusions (e.g. correlation is not causation; improper analysis, etc).

However, overwhelmingly, the use of statistics reflects a general basis for empirical argument.

If Kobe, for example, simply "looked" like the better player, then we can throw aside statistics and claim that Kobe was better. However, he doesn't simply look like the better player. A lot of people will tell you that LeBron looks like the better player. Paul Pierce will tell you that LeBron is the hardest assignment he's ever had. And, from experience, he's played against Kobe for the last 10 years.

That said, since we can't use the eyeball test (since LeBron and Kobe are comparable there), wouldn't it stand to reason that if Kobe were the better player, some statistical measure would prove it?

But, none of them do. Nowhere is Kobe superior than LeBron.

For example, the "eyeball test" suggests that Kobe is a better shooter than LeBron. How do we prove that he is? Well, if you look at the stats, Kobe is superior at LeBron in 3 point percentage and free throws. If you look at the splits, Kobe is a better 2 point jump shooter too. Thus, in this case, the statistics support that "eyeball test."

For LeBron, the eyeball test is that he's a much better penetrator, passer, and rebounder. We go to the statistics to show that his shooting percentage is higher, that he gets to the rim much more regularly (more layups and dunks), and he gets assists and rebounds at a higher rate. Thus he is, in fact, a better penetrator, playmaker, and rebounder.

The "eyeball test" indicates that Kobe is a better defender. Thus we can look for the stat that shows that the shooting percentage for Kobe's assignment (locking down your man, via the Elias Sports Bureau). This shows that Kobe does a better job of playing lockdown defense than LeBron. On the flipside, the "eyeball test" shows that LeBron is the better off-ball defender. We can take a look at his steals and blocks total to suggest this. Most of his steals and blocks comes from when he moves into passing lanes or when he rotates to swat a shot away.

Finally, the "eyeball test" seems to suggest that LeBron has a bigger impact on his team's performance. Cleveland without LeBron is substantially worse than Los Angeles without Kobe, yet LeBron has his team with a similar record with Los Angeles. We look at the +/-, Roland Ratings, and PER to support this argument, and in fact, LeBron is the more important and more effective overall player.

See?

I've never once claimed that the use of statistics is everything. I have, however, said that the statistics support the assertion that LeBron is the better overall player. The fact that he's done more with less than Kobe should be reason enough to claim he is a better player, right?

I mean, think of it this way, I ask you guys to debate properly, in which case, you have to raise the counterargument. Prove that Kobe is a better player than LeBron?

We can also go with proof by contradiction. If there is no way to prove that Kobe is better than LeBron, then LeBron is either equal or better than Kobe.

Easy, right? It's Lunar and Yingying that likes to straw man my argument into claiming that it's only statistical evidence. I watch a lot of games and I've always felt that LeBron is the better player. As I said, I listed out their respective team performance, and LeBron has Kobe beat.

So, I ask, when was my argument only about statistics?

[ChanceEncounter]

Stats always dictate the truth?

Haven't you heard of the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"?

Anyway, This NYT article about recent uses of stats by Houston Rockets might be interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ma...t.html?_r=1&em

Han Solo

And Shane Battier actually has very good career +/-, by the way.

As I said, I'm not using one statistic to form the crux of my argument. I'm using a number of observations that are supported by statistic after statistic.

That's the closest thing you'll get to the truth. There's simply no way for us to play God, open up LeBron and Kobe, and compare the players' ability ratings like in NBA 2K9.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Because you fail to understand that blocks and steals are not "all defensive stats." They are a measure of your ability to play help defense. Higher steal counts are a result of clogging passing lanes, and higher blocks are often from help defense and rotating over to the open man.

Yes. I do fail to understand. Please name the stats that I missed to explain why Byant was picked and NOT James. Show me the "all defensive stats" to explain the coaches choices. Otherwise, throw out all your stats arguments. Don't waste your time (or mine) brining in irrelevent explainations of how defense or overall plays together. I could care less. I have NEVER stated that kobe is a better player than Lebron. I just want to know how valid your stats arguments are--which you still haven't shown. Until you can show those stats to support the coaches choices, those stats mean nothing. Don't bother wasting your time (or ours) by bringing them up. Unless of course, you argue that coaches don't know anything about basketball.

edit: alright, i'll give it to you that stats MAY mean something SOMETIMES when we're comparing players of completely different levels, say when you're comparing an all-star to a third rate bench player. Stats are also good if you don't watch the game and want to see roughly how everyone did.

- The Scouting Report: The scouting report states who is the better player?

- Team Success the last 4 years--TEAM success. Your claim was that Cleveland w/o Lebron is one of the statistically WORST teams. Prove that STATS mean something first. Even for this year, the lakers have pau gasol & deeper bench. Cleveland has nobody. Mo Williams as an all star backup means nothing. Even "nobodies" like Ray Allen can be all star backups. Ben Wallace obviously doesn't know how to play defense. Don't get me wrong. Props to Lebron for improving his team, and he certianly does bring a big part to Cleveland. But to simply say that he's the better player beceause the rest of his team is "statistically" worse is just crap. Not to mention you have to first base it on the assumption that CLE & LAL are on the same footing. And for this season, so far, the lakers have higher win percentage and they have swept the series with the cavs.

- Conference Strength--Up until last year, the west has had a winning record agains the east. Even if we look at this year in depth, while the top three elite teams seem to topper over the west, Atlanta sits at the 4th spot with less than a .6 winning percentage. The elites in teh east are better, but the west is deeper.

- How much trouble each of their teams/players gave the Celtics--the Atlanta Hawks also fought the Celtics to 7 games in last years playoffs. Perhaps Joe Johnson is even better than Lebron!

- Testimonials of players that guard them (e.g. Paul Pierce, Shane Battier)--I can probably give you just as many testimonies from players/coaches who think otherwise.

- How effective the player looks on the court--isn't looks up to personal opinion?


P.S. did anyone watch the all-star game with the dancing shaq?

[ChanceEncounter]

Yes. I do fail to understand. Please name the stats that I missed to explain why Byant was picked and NOT James. Show me the "all defensive stats" to explain the coaches choices. Otherwise, throw out all your stats arguments. Don't waste your time (or mine) brining in irrelevent explainations of how defense or overall plays together. I could care less. I have NEVER stated that kobe is a better player than Lebron. I just want to know how valid your stats arguments are--which you still haven't shown. Until you can show those stats to support the coaches choices, those stats mean nothing. Don't bother wasting your time (or ours) by bringing them up. Unless of course, you argue that coaches don't know anything about basketball.

You know what your problem is? You seem to think that because Kobe Bryant is on the All-NBA defensive team, that it's some kind of Kryptonite to my argument. It isn't. In fact, since LeBron definitively (empirically) has a bigger impact on the scoreboard overall, it just proves that even if Kobe is a better defender, he's not a better ball player than LeBron. That's what +/- measures, directly: Floor Impact. Asking me to prove that +/- doesn't measure floor impact is like claiming that feet and inches don't measure length.

Points per shot/points per possession is absolutely a measure of how efficient a player is on the offensive end. The idea is that you score more without clogging up as many possessions that your team has. Each team has a limited number of possessions, and the team that can take advantage of their offensive possessions better will win the game. This is fact. In fact, in nearly every game, the team that has more points per possession wins. The only exception? A team that wins by a very small margin (one or two points), but has extra possessions by winning the opening tip as well as holding the ball for the last possessions before the clock expires. This is mathematical certainty. Who scores more per possession/more per shot? LeBron James. Who gets more offensive rebounds to preserve possessions? LeBron James. Who forces more turnovers to restrict opponent possessions? LeBron James.

Secondly, as I mentioned, just because Kobe is on the All-NBA defensive team does not prove he's a better overall player than LeBron. As I said, Bruce Bowen and Raja Bell are on the All-NBA defensive team.

First off, you comment shows a blatant lack of understanding in basketball. While the All-NBA defensive team is a very nice door stopper, the single most important aspect of playing defense is team defense, specifically, your ability to translate team defense into points and swings at the other end; it's no good to hold a team to 50 if you only score 49.

Secondly, defense is not the same as offense. On offense, one player can take over the game and dictate play. Defensive is an assignment-based, read-and-react game, and unless you are a dominant center (which is why they are so valuable), you are not going to change the complexion of the defense by yourself. How many times have you seen LeBron James drive past his defender, split a double team, and then hit a layup or dunk over a help defender? It happens almost every game; this singular action has LeBron taking up 3 defenders. This doesn't happen on the defensive end. No matter how good of a defender you are, you aren't taking up 3 offensive players. So while team defense is as important as team offense, an individual's contributions to team defense is much less substantial to what an individual contribution to offense could be, and this is by play design.

Thirdly, being a lockdown defender is a game of percentages. There are two things that can happen with good defense:

1. You force a turnover
2. You force the opposing team into a low-percentage shot

Good defenses force teams into low-percentage shots. The 90s era Bulls were the master of forcing low-percentage shots. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman were all some of the best defenders in NBA history, and they would bother shooters all day.

Knowing this, we already know that Kobe does not force more turnovers than LeBron (LeBron's steals/blocks > Kobe's). Kobe may force his assignment to either give up the ball or take a lower percentage shot, but this is still at most, limiting the effectiveness of one player in the opposing offense. We do know that as a team, Cleveland plays stronger defense and holds opponents to a lower shooting percentage than Los Angeles, and much of it is because of LeBron's length and athleticism often in help defense.

Fourthly, the old adage is that "the defensive stand doesn't end until you secure the rebound." This is exactly why coaches stress boxing out and rebounding so much. By getting more rebounds, LeBron effectively closes out possesions more than Kobe. This is also exactly why forwards and centers are typically considered more important on the defensive end than guards. Also, since LeBron is listed as a forward, he has to compete with superior interior defenders like Ben Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, and Marcus Camby for recognition on the All-NBA defense. Thus, Kobe and LeBron as "All-NBA defenders" are not even in the same category. So as for your point, oops.

Finally, because LeBron forces more turnovers, and he's a faster player down the court than Kobe (thus a more dangerous transition player), those steals and rebounds that he secures often leads directly to transition baskets. If you force a turnover and score immediately on the other end, that is effective a 4 point swing. Instead of allowing the team to score a basket, you score a basket. This shows up on the +/- a +2, and it's a very important stat to keep track of, because it also changes the momentum of the game.

Basically, your argument is that we can disavow ALL of these stats because they "may" not indicate what we want, yet we can assume that Kobe's All-NBA defensive team awards (itself a achievement statistic) means that Kobe is a better defender than LeBron:

- Points
- Rebounds
- Assists
- Blocks
- Steals
- Player Efficiency
- +/-
- Adjusted +/- (Roland Ratings)
- Shooting Percentage
- True Shooting Percentage (including Kobe's superiority in 3 pointers)
- 4th quarter stats and +/-
- Points per shot
- "Clutch" stats

Again, each individual stat may not prove LeBron is a better player than Kobe. But the odds that ALL of them are wrong is exceedingly slim, and clearly showing that you're grasping at every straw.

As for defense, I already addressed the nonissue in the first place. Even if Kobe is a better on-the-ball defender, it's not enough to make him a better overall player. That's the truth, sorry if you don't like it.

- The Scouting Report: The scouting report states who is the better player?

Don't be daft. I already stated what the scouting report says:

Kobe is better at:

- shooting (jumpshots, 3 pointers, free thows)
- ballhandling
- on ball defense

LeBron is better at:

- penetrating/driving
- rebounding/post presence
- assists/playmaking
- off ball/help defense (getting in passing lanes, rotation, blocked shots)

As I said, if I have to say everything multiple times, it's just going to take longer.

- Team Success the last 4 years--TEAM success. Your claim was that Cleveland w/o Lebron is one of the statistically WORST teams. Prove that STATS mean something first. Even for this year, the lakers have pau gasol & deeper bench. Cleveland has nobody. Mo Williams as an all star backup means nothing. Even "nobodies" like Ray Allen can be all star backups. Ben Wallace obviously doesn't know how to play defense. Don't get me wrong. Props to Lebron for improving his team, and he certianly does bring a big part to Cleveland. But to simply say that he's the better player beceause the rest of his team is "statistically" worse is just crap. Not to mention you have to first base it on the assumption that CLE & LAL are on the same footing. And for this season, so far, the lakers have higher win percentage and they have swept the series with the cavs.

Uh... Cleveland without LeBron over the past four years, if you go by the splits, has the worst point differential in the league. I think if you are consistently rammed by double digits in games, that is a good indicator that you aren't a very good team, huh?

The Lakers are actually a fairly competent team without Kobe. Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Andrew Bynum, Trevor Ariza > Mo Williams, Zydrunas Ilgauskus, Ben Wallace, and Delonte West. You can ask GM's, journalists, die hard fans, and coaches and they'll tell you the same. Not to mention the stats, conveniently, also indicate the same thing.

You also forget to mention that Mo Williams is making his FIRST all-star game in his career (courtesy of playing with LeBron) and he was selected as replacement.

Furthermore, am I wrong in saying that a player that does the same or more with less is a better player than a person that does the same or less with more? If I can consistently get just as much or more value out of 80 bucks than you can a 100 bucks, doesn't that make me a better spender than you?

So the point still stands. LeBron, with a WORSE team, has done as well or better than Kobe over the past 4 years. Even last year, he gave the Celtics a much better run for their money than Kobe and the Lakers.

The Lakers have a higher win percentage by a tiny margin (LA is 1.5 games--having played one more game--ahead of Cleveland... HUUUGE INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD RIGHT? ), and are you really saying that a two game sample proves that Kobe is a better player? So since Orlando swept the series against Los Angeles, Dwight Howard > Kobe Bryant?

- Conference Strength--Up until last year, the west has had a winning record agains the east. Even if we look at this year in depth, while the top three elite teams seem to topper over the west, Atlanta sits at the 4th spot with less than a .6 winning percentage. The elites in teh east are better, but the west is deeper.

No, the East is deeper. The bottom dwellers in the west are worse than the bottom dwellers in the East. The West is top-heavy with above average teams (no real elite teams outside of Los Angeles).

And while true that prior to this year, the west had a better overall record than the east, the Caveliers had a better record than the Lakers in the 05-06 and 06-07 season. Both of these seasons were with a Kobe Bryant, in his prime, as the unquestioned go to player for his team. How come he wasn't able to will his team to a better result than a young LeBron?

- How much trouble each of their teams/players gave the Celtics--the Atlanta Hawks also fought the Celtics to 7 games in last years playoffs. Perhaps Joe Johnson is even better than Lebron!

Except the Hawks lost by a huge margin in game 7, and for the most part, lost by large margins throughout the series. So even sarcastically, this wouldn't show Joe Johnson is better than LeBron, especially considering Joe Johnson is not anywhere near as important to his franchise as LeBron and Kobe are to theirs.

In short, you fail.

- Testimonials of players that guard them (e.g. Paul Pierce, Shane Battier)--I can probably give you just as many testimonies from players/coaches who think otherwise.

Maybe, but we should also take into account both sides of the argument. In short, there isn't a large enough difference from eyeballing/experience to overcome the large statistical advantages LeBron has over Kobe.

- How effective the player looks on the court--isn't looks up to personal opinion?

Only if it's really close. It really isn't. LeBron has the best first step since a young Michael Jordan, and he's bigger and stronger than anyone at his position. He can drive inside and make things happen against anyone in the NBA.

Let me get this straight, we can't use anything that's subjective/up to opinion (the eyeball test), we can't use empirical statistics ("but they might not mean anything!!"), we can't use recent testimonials and performances, we can't use team success respective to the level of their teammates, we can't use the net impact that a player has on the court. We just have to accept that, no matter what, Kobe is the better player.

I'm beginning to see how you 'debate,' are you sure you aren't trolling?

This is your ONLY argument:

Don't bother arguing unless you can explain with your stats why kobe can make 1st defensive team in the past 3 years (voted by head COACHES..unless you can show me otherwise) and lebron gets nada despite putting up better rebound, block, and steal stats. Or what is it now...coaches are biased against "off-ball" defenders or lebron's young age? This isn't about whether kobe or lebron is better, but rather your absurd reliance on stats. just think of kobe and lebron as two players who just happened to be used in the example. don't get sidetracked and don't diverge from the argument.

The All-NBA defensive player teams are eyeball tests. Kobe looks like a more natural defender than LeBron. The same eyeball tests by coaches will reveal that LeBron is the better looking offensive player/force. Thus, how do we settle the difference?

Well, wouldn't it be great if there was an empirical way to measure the net impact a player has from BOTH his offensive and defensive presence? Oh WAIT! WE DO!!

Your argument is superceded by a stat that DIRECTLY SHOWS a player's overall value to the ENTIRE GAME (offense AND defense). That's exactly what the +/- measures empirically and directly. It's not a stat like points, where we have to factor in the context of where those points came and what effect of those points were. It's a stat that directly measures how much your team scores more than the other team when you were in the game.

So yes, the "stats" don't show that Kobe is a better defender than LeBron.

The stats DO show that LeBron is a better OVERALL player than Kobe. I don't need to prove that LeBron is a better defender than Kobe to prove that LeBron is a better player. That's a false dilemma fallacy on your part.

There is no case against Adjusted +/-, and you haven't made any. Even in the 'nitpicks' of John Hollinger's PER, you picked two ridiculous arguments ("Marreese Speights averages a high efficiency in low minutes, so he must be great, yay!!" and "A 22 and 10.4 player [Zack Randolph] is ranked higher than Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, the system must be borked!") as if the exception had become the rule. You've shown a brilliant ability to nitpick at irrelevant technical details, building straw man arguments to knock down, and really bring absolutely no real points to the argument.

Thanks for volunteering to be my chewtoy, but if you don't bring something substantial to argue, I'm tired of rebuking your broken point over and over again.

QE-muthafuggin-D.

[Ren Ying Ying]

This argument isn't about kobe or lebron being better. Lebron has been player much better defense this year compared to previously. For all we know, he could become defensive player of the year this year. But that's NOT the point. And again...I've never once said that kobe is a better player than lebron (or dwight, or cp3 or d wade for that matter). Read carefully.

My point is that your STATS do not correlate to who is better or worse. It is not significant enough to give "odds". If "defensive stats" cannot correlate with better defensive player, then what makes "offensive stats" correlate? How does "overall stats" correlate? What? Defense is an exception because you cannot find the stats? Since Lebron is better than kobe in all the defensive stats, shouldn't the odds lie in that he is a better defender? On ball, or off ball, they are both defense. I think the coaches are at least smart enough to know that. Oh, but wait, coaches only use eye-balling and dont' actually know much about basketball and they are too dumb to comprehend statistics. Obviously, coaches don't watch basketball games. Watching tapes of other teams is not part of their job. They don't really bother analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of players of the opposing team. They can't read stats to distinguish who's better. Until you can find the stats to correlate, your "statistical correlations" do not work. Unless, of course, you claim that you are a better judge of players than NBA head coaches--I can't argue against that.

It's not about one small irrelevent fact about defense, so quit making irrelevent paragraphs about how better defensive player doesn't mean better overall player. I don't care. It's about the underlying premise for 99% of your argument. How can your argument work when your premise if faulty?

As for "+/-" is that important...then clearly Lamar Odom is the star of the lakers. Then Big-Z, Ben Wallace, & Delonte West are all one of the top 25 players in the league? And yet you're complaining that cleveland isn't a "star studded" team? Even if d. west is injured, you still have 2 players other stars. Lakers only have odom. kobe is number 40 and gasol is...who knows where on the list. And the fact that kevin durant has a -7.2 means his presence is actually hurting his team?

You claim that we make fun of your points by only looking at one stat instead of "comprehensive" stat. Yet, if each one of the categories of "stats" is faulty...what makes you think adding them together will prove anything? The last I remember, when you add/multiply two separate categories of stats together...the margin of error only gets larger, not smaller.

Stat's arn't entirely useless. It can tell you that dwight howard is big on rebounds, ray allen is a sharp shooter, etc. It may even help you distinguish a 4th tier player and an all star (sometimes). But for players in the same tier...a formulated stat isn't going to be very helpful.

Kobe is better at:

- shooting (jumpshots, 3 pointers, free thows)
- ballhandling
- on ball defense

LeBron is better at:

- penetrating/driving
- rebounding/post presence
- assists/playmaking
- off ball/help defense (getting in passing lanes, rotation, blocked shots)

And that proves lebron is better...HOW?

p.s. where did you get the scouting report?

Except the Hawks lost by a huge margin in game 7, and for the most part, lost by large margins throughout the series. So even sarcastically, this wouldn't show Joe Johnson is better than LeBron, especially considering Joe Johnson is not anywhere near as important to his franchise as LeBron and Kobe are to theirs.

If it's about point differentials...then the Celtics should not have LOST 3 games in the first place. And it's it's about a one game difference, would that mean the lakers are far better than the cavs this year since they won 2 against the cavs?

Uh... Cleveland without LeBron over the past four years, if you go by the splits, has the worst point differential in the league. I think if you are consistently rammed by double digits in games, that is a good indicator that you aren't a very good team, huh?

And of course, Cleveland obviously is still the same roster/team aside from Lebron) as it was in 2003, just like how the current lakers are using the same roster/team as it was in 2004. Don't get me wrong. James is obviously an important addition to the team, but you also just ignored and devalued all the other additions and changes made to the team. Clearly, if you took James out, they will not be the same cavs. But to say that James single-handedly transformed the cavs from a 0.300 team to a 0.800 team...arn't you pushing it a bit? Basketball isn't a one-man game, whether you are lebron, jordan, magic, kareem, or otherwise. If you stuffed bryant to sacremento, you might also see a different kings. If you stuffed dwight in washington, you might see a different wizards. If you took bryant out from the lakers, i guarantee you'll also see a differnt lakers.

The Lakers are actually a fairly competent team without Kobe. Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Andrew Bynum, Trevor Ariza > Mo Williams, Zydrunas Ilgauskus, Ben Wallace, and Delonte West. You can ask GM's, journalists, die hard fans, and coaches and they'll tell you the same. Not to mention the stats, conveniently, also indicate the same thing.

The Lakers have a higher win percentage by a tiny margin (LA is 1.5 games--having played one more game--ahead of Cleveland... HUUUGE INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD RIGHT? ), and are you really saying that a two game sample proves that Kobe is a better player? So since Orlando swept the series against Los Angeles, Dwight Howard > Kobe Bryant?

Of course the Lakers had the more competent team THIS YEAR. That's why they were able to sweep the Cavs for this season. Sure the Laker's role players were the key difference, but do you really think lebron outperformed kobe in both of those games? In either case, sweeping the caves may not prove anything about kobe being better than lebron, but it sure doesn't prove lebron>kobe. Thus, weaker side kicks or not, how does that show lebron>kobe?

And yes, R. Lewis+J. Nelson+Turkoglu+Lee+whoever else might have an edge over gasol+(inconsistent) bynum + (inconsistent) lamar + fisher+whoever else depending on how well bynum or lamar plays. Dwight himself could be on equal footing with kobe, if he is even inferior at all.

But of course, having 3 all stars doesn't always mean that you will win the game. A team studded with stoutamire, shaq, and steve nash might doesn't even sit in place to make the playoffs. Yes, shaq is old...but he's still a mountain and requires double teaming. Nash is getting old, but he's still one of the premiere point guards in the league. In no way am i comparing them to Boston's big 3 or even Houston's one-legged team...but the suns sitting in the lower half of the league?

And last year, before adding gasol, the lakers still had a 0.63 record.

No, the East is deeper. The bottom dwellers in the west are worse than the bottom dwellers in the East. The West is top-heavy with above average teams (no real elite teams outside of Los Angeles).

And while true that prior to this year, the west had a better overall record than the east, the Caveliers had a better record than the Lakers in the 05-06 and 06-07 season. Both of these seasons were with a Kobe Bryant, in his prime, as the unquestioned go to player for his team. How come he wasn't able to will his team to a better result than a young LeBron?

By "deeper", we're usually refering to the playoff teams (top 8 in each conference). Yes, the worse in the west are pretty bad this year, but it shouldn't matter for the elite teams since you should be able to defeat them anyway. In either case, "better" or "worse" conference shouldn't affect the "elite" teams. Thus, I don't see how conference even comes into play with your argument.

Let me get this straight, we can't use anything that's subjective/up to opinion (the eyeball test), we can't use empirical statistics ("but they might not mean anything!!"), we can't use recent testimonials and performances, we can't use team success respective to the level of their teammates, we can't use the net impact that a player has on the court. We just have to accept that, no matter what, Kobe is the better player.

I'm beginning to see how you 'debate,' are you sure you aren't trolling?

I never said that you couldn't use subjectives. If you had just said that you think Lebron is better cuz you think he looks better on court, i wouldn't have bothered. It's the fact that you romped in here acting as if you're the only one in the world who knows about the stats and can "eyeball" players.

And my dear Chancy, anyone who bothers to debate on this forum for multiple pages is a troll. So yes, essentially, I am a troll . And that helps your argument...how?

[LuNaR]

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4190/17297669mt6.png')

[Ghaleon]

So how about those Toronto Raptors?

[KJ]

Here's a good youtube video, re kobe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8QrG...eature=related

[Ren Ying Ying]

The playoffs are here
ken should get that avatar ready.

[Ken Cheng]

The playoffs are here
ken should get that avatar ready.

You're right.

[duguxiaojing]

LA over cavs in 6 or 7....but I think if blazers and LA meet the are goin 2 give them a harder thim then most suspect...and maybe even beat them !!!???

[duguxiaojing]

hahhah the Kobe vs Lebron argument is everywhere these days.

My take they are roughyl equal in both offense and defense..when Kobe lock's down imo he's the best defender in the L..but he plays defense in spurts...Lebron stepped it up this year!! his D improved soo much!! he's very close to the top now although I do not agree with him being in the top 3 in DPY voting..it seems that they always just vote for the stars...

It's true that Bron is superior in pretty much all major statistical categories, but Cavs offense and La offense is setup differently. The ball goes through bron's hands more and there is less movement and second passes so his assists and scoring should be > than kobe's (and they are). The more the ball's in your hands the higher your stas should be pretty much....and stats dont always tell the hole story...


At this rate though Bron is going 2 go down as the GOAT!!!...He's smashing all these records and IMO if you look at the big 4 in the NBA he has the least help and yet they have the best rec in the L.


Lawl Lunar!!!

[Ren Ying Ying]

LA over cavs in 6 or 7....but I think if blazers and LA meet the are goin 2 give them a harder thim then most suspect...and maybe even beat them !!!???

they might give a lakers a hard time, but in a seven game series...i don't think so. given that it's playoff time 2nd round, laker's cruise control mode should turn off more often