NBA Discussion

[Long]

Now that I think about it, that "Airball" you tag to Kobe's name is from the 97 playoffs too isn't it?

Nope. You're wrong here. Though yes, I love watching images of Bryant doing that fade away jumper and drawing nothing but "air".

"Airball" Bryant has many meanings. Since he wishes to compare himself with Michael Jordan, who's nickname is "Air", I thought I'd select a similiar nickname for Kobe Bryant. What more fitting then his "Airballness". I've seen many LA games during the time Kobe and Shaq played together and there were countless times when Kobe's fadeaway drew nothing but "air". Remember the Houston play-off game? Didn't Shaq grab one of Kobe's "airballs" and dunked it home to win the game??


You give me a player who consistently takes 16 shots to score 17pts like today, and previously something like 27 shots to score 23 pts, and 17 shots to score 11 pts ect..... There have been lost of games where Kobe has taken say 20 shots to score 20 pts.

Does the nickname "Airball" not suit him???

[jay_z]

none you were there when sprewell chocked pj carlisemo, so you don't exactly know what drove sprewell crazy enough to do such a thing. imo, pj should take part of the blame for provoking spree.

same with kobe. we only know he had sex with that girl, thus cheating on his wife. but, was it consent sex? we don't know.

one thing that sprewell, kobe and ai share is that they always play hard from start to end of each game even though they average 40+ minutes a game. you have to respect that.

[Moinllieon]

You give me a player who consistently takes 16 shots to score 17pts like today, and previously something like 27 shots to score 23 pts, and 17 shots to score 11 pts ect..... There have been lost of games where Kobe has taken say 20 shots to score 20 pts.

Does the nickname "Airball" not suit him???

Easy, I'll give you several, Allen Iverson, Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, and Michael Jordan!

From the age of 21 (the age at which MJ joined the league), he averaged 1.3 points per shot in his career, the exact same ratio as MJ himself (McGrady has averaged 1.2 points per shot since he joined the Magic at 21). And I really don't want to be bothered to check up the ratio that the likes of PP, Walker, and AI puts up. Of course, I think MJ is a much better player overall, but that's not a result of Kobe's shot-to-point ratio but of MJ learning to trust his teammates in Chicago.

[Long]

Easy, I'll give you several, Allen Iverson, Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, and Michael Jordan!

From the age of 21 (the age at which MJ joined the league), he averaged 1.3 points per shot in his career, the exact same ratio as MJ himself (McGrady has averaged 1.2 points per shot since he joined the Magic at 21). And I really don't want to be bothered to check up the ratio that the likes of PP, Walker, and AI puts up. Of course, I think MJ is a much better player overall, but that's not a result of Kobe's shot-to-point ratio but of MJ learning to trust his teammates in Chicago.

Your stats doesn't take into account the overall scoring picture. Let me put things into perspective.

Kobe Bryant - If he was 100% effective he would be averaging 60.2ppg, but currently averages only 28.5 after 29 games a negative difference of 31.7 pts.

Tracy McGrady - If he was 100% effective he would be averaging 51.4ppg, currently averages 24.0ppg, with a negative difference of 27.4ppg.

LeBron James (huge improvement this year) - 100% effective = 46.9ppg, currently averages 24.5ppg, a negative difference of 22.4ppg.

Allen Iverson = 100% = 60.7ppg, current average = 29.1ppg, a negative difference of 31.6ppg

Michael Jodan career = 100% = 55.6ppg, averaged 30.1, a negative difference of only 25.5pts.

So don't you even compare MJ to Kobe, he is already giving up 6.2 points pergame compared with Jordan. McGrady and others are less costly to thier teams.

Also on Eddie Jones, have you even checked what this guy's FG%, and ppg average is in a 7th deciding game, or an elimination game where he has to perform for his team?? I guess not.. It's not his play-off average that shows up. But his form in 'key' games.

[Moinllieon]

Your stats doesn't take into account the overall scoring picture. Let me put things into perspective.

Kobe Bryant - If he was 100% effective he would be averaging 60.2ppg, but currently averages only 28.5 after 29 games a negative difference of 31.7 pts.

Tracy McGrady - If he was 100% effective he would be averaging 51.4ppg, currently averages 24.0ppg, with a negative difference of 27.4ppg.

LeBron James (huge improvement this year) - 100% effective = 46.9ppg, currently averages 24.5ppg, a negative difference of 22.4ppg.

Allen Iverson = 100% = 60.7ppg, current average = 29.1ppg, a negative difference of 31.6ppg

Michael Jodan career = 100% = 55.6ppg, averaged 30.1, a negative difference of only 25.5pts.

So don't you even compare MJ to Kobe, he is already giving up 6.2 points pergame compared with Jordan. McGrady and others are less costly to thier teams.

Also on Eddie Jones, have you even checked what this guy's FG%, and ppg average is in a 7th deciding game, or an elimination game where he has to perform for his team?? I guess not.. It's not his play-off average that shows up. But his form in 'key' games.

You asked me to give you players who averaged worse than 1.3 points per shot during his career and gets over 20ppg (players who took so many shots to score that many points). Well, I gave it to ya, and MJ is among them. If you don't like the fact that MJ fits that criterion, then I suggest you stop suggesting that Kobe's average of 1.3 points per game is the reason why he's bad. Because since turning 21, Kobe has matched MJ in that criteria.

Actually, my stats take in a MUCH BETTER OVERALL SCORING PICTURE than what you've offered. You've decided only to calculate snap shots of this year with active players and compoared it to MJ's career. Not a fair comparison for anyone involved. After turning 21, if MJ and Kobe has hit EVERY SINGLE SHOT THEY EVER TOOK, MJ would be averaging barely over 50 points and Kobe would be averaging 51 points. (FGA/G - 3FGA/G)*2 + 3FGA/G*3 + FTA. Right? I mean, I don't think it's fair to penalize Kobe for his first 2 years, when he was 18 and 19 and averaging 7 and 15 points a game (and taking more shots to score the same points, because he wasn't getting nearly the same calls as he is now). And I think we both agree that it's too early for us to make any say about Lebron's career.

As for Eddie Jones. I thought EVERY PLAYOFF GAMES were "key". I've already proven that Eddie Jones' overall playoff performance over his career is not worthy of the label "choke", now it's up to you to dig up those "key/elimination game" stats that you have and prove your point. You are more than welcomed to lay out Eddie Jones' performances in key games and prove your point. And while you are at it, tell me where I can go find those stats so I can review those games some more.

[Long]

I used to dislike LeBron James because last year he was only 46% effective. But this year is 52%. Shows what a big difference he has made.

If you want to compare apples with apples. Who would your rather have on your team? Kobe or LJ23??

Kobe Bryant - 28.5 ppg, at a cost to the team of 60.2ppg
LeBron James - 24.5ppg at a cost to the team of 46.9ppg.

So though Kobe may average 4.0ppg more than LeBron James, he is actually costing his team 13.3ppg to score those 4 points. Really raises eyebrows doesn't it??

[Long]

I mean even bring T-Mac into the picture compared with Kobe:

Kobe - 28.5, 60.2
T-Mac - 24.0, 51.4

Kobe scores 4.5ppg more than T-Mac but costs his team 9.1 ppg more to achieve that feat.

Kobe - 28.5, 60.2
AI - 29.1, 60.7

AI scores 0.6 ppg more than Kobe, at 0.5 ppg cost to his team. So both players are just as 'ineffective' as each other.

My stats take into account "actual" values so no room for error here.

[Moinllieon]

I used to dislike LeBron James because last year he was only 46% effective. But this year is 52%. Shows what a big difference he has made.

If you want to compare apples with apples. Who would your rather have on your team? Kobe or LJ23??

Kobe Bryant - 28.5 ppg, at a cost to the team of 60.2ppg
LeBron James - 24.5ppg at a cost to the team of 46.9ppg.

So though Kobe may average 4.0ppg more than LeBron James, he is actually costing his team 13.3ppg to score those 4 points. Really raises eyebrows doesn't it??

So far this year I'd want Lebron as well. So? Your point wasn't how "great" Lebron is but how "bad" Kobe is. I don't think anybody is disputing how great Lebron or MJ is. It'll be a long time before you can convince me that Kobe is a "bad" player because he's worse than Lebron. You aren't gonna get too far with that argument. (You are shorter than Yao Ming?!?! You must be a dwarf!!!)

[Long]

So far this year I'd want Lebron as well. So? Your point wasn't how "great" Lebron is but how "bad" Kobe is. I don't think anybody is disputing how great Lebron or MJ is. It'll be a long time before you can convince me that Kobe is a "bad" player because he's worse than Lebron. You aren't gonna get too far with that argument. (You are shorter than Yao Ming?!?! You must be a dwarf!!!)

I merely pointing out that in terms of SG, there are better and more effective players in the NBA at the moment then Kobe Bryant. Even PP, T-Mac, Ray Allen, and co do better than Kobe. Because Kobe costs the team 60.2 points per game to score his 28.5 points per game.

Everyone is saying Kobe is the top SG, I just wanted to show he wasn't and probably sit "outside" the top 10 at the moment...

It's not how many points you score, but how many points you cost the team...

[Moinllieon]

I mean even bring T-Mac into the picture compared with Kobe:

Kobe - 28.5, 60.2
T-Mac - 24.0, 51.4

Kobe scores 4.5ppg more than T-Mac but costs his team 9.1 ppg more to achieve that feat.

Kobe - 28.5, 60.2
AI - 29.1, 60.7

AI scores 0.6 ppg more than Kobe, at 0.5 ppg cost to his team. So both players are just as 'ineffective' as each other.

My stats take into account "actual" values so no room for error here.

You asked what player would take: " say 20 shots to score 20 pts." And I gave you alot of players. Then suddenly, after that argument failed, you suddenly started qualifying it some more with "actual" values, whatever that maybe. Hey, too bad. No matter how you spin it, from stats, MJ is just as likely to "take 20 shots to score 20 points" as Kobe. You didn't ask about efficiency with a view towards how many of those shots are 3s or how many foul shots the player takes.

I've engaged in more than my share of this excercise, as a baseball fan. I've gone so far as to find stats (outs per bases, outs per 27 team outs) that proved that Chuck Knoblauch was a better player than Ichiro during Irchiro's rookie year. If you dig far enough, you can find a stats that proves anything you want. Your "actual" values stat that has no room for error proves that Carlos Boozer is better than Tim Duncan. CONGRATULATIONS!

[Moinllieon]

I merely pointing out that in terms of SG, there are better and more effective players in the NBA at the moment then Kobe Bryant. Even PP, T-Mac, Ray Allen, and co do better than Kobe. Because Kobe costs the team 60.2 points per game to score his 28.5 points per game.

Everyone is saying Kobe is the top SG, I just wanted to show he wasn't and probably sit "outside" the top 10 at the moment...

It's not how many points you score, but how many points you cost the team...

Correction, it IS how many points you score. A player who "costs" his team 20 points but only scores 15 isn't nearly the same player that "costs" his team 45 and scores 25.

[Long]

Correction, it IS how many points you score. A player who "costs" his team 20 points but only scores 15 isn't nearly the same player that "costs" his team 45 and scores 25.

Well you look back over the history of the NBA and the finals MVP and the key players that win championship have a negative differential of less than 25.0. Kobe is on his own here with a differential of -37.0. So unless he improves that don't look for LA to go anywhere.

This year when the 16 play-off teams are set, I'll use my forumla and try and predict the Champions before the play-off commences based on the effectiveness of a player in regulary season, and efficency in the 4th quarters. This is benchmarked against previous ratings for championship teams...

[Moinllieon]

Well you look back over the history of the NBA and the finals MVP and the key players that win championship have a negative differential of less than 25.0. Kobe is on his own here with a differential of -37.0. So unless he improves that don't look for LA to go anywhere.

Wow, going out on a limb there you are! The Lakers aren't going to win the Championship this year? Really? How did you come to the same conclusion that every single fan who follows the NBA came to without your stats?

This year when the 16 play-off teams are set, I'll use my forumla and try and predict the Champions before the play-off commences based on the effectiveness of a player in regulary season, and efficency in the 4th quarters. This is benchmarked against previous ratings for championship teams...

That should be interesting, especially considering that stat is nothing more than a conversion of FG%. (I'll save you the trouble, last year the T'Wolves would have been tops on your "actual" value/efficiency chart).

[Long]

Wow, going out on a limb there you are! The Lakers aren't going to win the Championship this year? Really? How did you come to the same conclusion that every single fan who follows the NBA came to without your stats?



That should be interesting, especially considering that stat is nothing more than a conversion of FG%. (I'll save you the trouble, last year the T'Wolves would have been tops on your "actual" value/efficiency chart).

But 4th quarter play by guys like Sprewell would have actually dropped them below LA. I did do the Stats last year and placed a bet that LA would win. As LA had the better 4th quarter players and overall team stats based on the 12 guys on the roster and then the 8 that normally play most mins.

But who would have guessed that Kobe would try and got out and win a NBA Finals MVP, detracting from his team with an efficency rating of 42% compared with his regular season average of 51%. A real killer for LA. He could have averaged 80.0ppg + that finals series if he was 100% efficent

[spooks]

Holy Jebus! Intense debate between Moin and Long while I was home.

[Moinllieon]

But 4th quarter play by guys like Sprewell would have actually dropped them below LA. I did do the Stats last year and placed a bet that LA would win. As LA had the better 4th quarter players and overall team stats based on the 12 guys on the roster and then the 8 that normally play most mins.

But who would have guessed that Kobe would try and got out and win a NBA Finals MVP, detracting from his team with an efficency rating of 42% compared with his regular season average of 51%. A real killer for LA. He could have averaged 80.0ppg + that finals series if he was 100% efficent

Actually, the Spurs and the Pistons (and the Kings, I don't know about the Pacers because I didn't feel like including them in the calculation) were more efficient than your Lakers, according to your "stat". So how much stock should I put into a stat that even you don't rely on? You plainly bet against what your own stat says. It's quite easy to know that the Pistons are better 1 thru 8 than the Lakers. After Kobe and Shaq, the Pistons were better in every other position 3 to 8. Malone-Payton-Fisher-George-Fox-Madsen or Wallace-Prince-Billups-Okur-Williamson? Pretty easy to choose from really. If anything, this actually helps the case for your "efficiency" stat. Too bad even yourself didn't believe in the stat enough to bet on it.

[Long]

Actually, the Spurs and the Pistons (and the Kings, I don't know about the Pacers because I didn't feel like including them in the calculation) were more efficient than your Lakers, according to your "stat". So how much stock should I put into a stat that even you don't rely on? You plainly bet against what your own stat says. It's quite easy to know that the Pistons are better 1 thru 8 than the Lakers. After Kobe and Shaq, the Pistons were better in every other position 3 to 8. Malone-Payton-Fisher-George-Fox-Madsen or Wallace-Prince-Billups-Okur-Williamson? Pretty easy to choose from really. If anything, this actually helps the case for your "efficiency" stat. Too bad even yourself didn't believe in the stat enough to bet on it.

Factor in 4th quarter performances from the guys who recieve most mins in the 4th and some teams stats start going east... I actually mean just stats from 12 mins of play... And you are talking about stats in the regular season, before the play-offs right?? Where do I get the stats?? I'm a nut who does them myself... Also there are some sites that break down season stats by quarters...

Of course the Pistons held the better stats once the play-offs had concluded, and taking into account only the play-off games...

Pre-play-offs LA were one of the best 4th quarter teams..

[Moinllieon]

Factor in 4th quarter performances from the guys who recieve most mins in the 4th and some teams stats start going east... I actually mean just stats from 12 mins of play... And you are talking about stats in the regular season, before the play-offs right?? Where do I get the stats?? I'm a nut who does them myself... Also there are some sites that break down season stats by quarters...

Of course the Pistons held the better stats once the play-offs had concluded, and taking into account only the play-off games...

Pre-play-offs LA were one of the best 4th quarter teams..

I'm doing them pre-playoffs since you are obviously using the regular season stats as a predictor or post-season performance.

Can I ask you why the Lakers were one of the best 4th quarter teams? Is it because of a certain shooting guard named Kobe Bryant? And if so, if 4th quarter "efficiency" (or whatever) is so important that they trump overall entire game "efficiency", why do you not factor in his 4th quarter performances this season when criticizing him and comparing him to other players, such as Lebron? And if that "no room for error" stat of yours need that much tweaking before you use it as a predictor, why don't you just tweak them ahead of time when comparing players?

Also, do you include such mundane stats like "turnovers" in how many points a player "costs" his team? And do you subtract the number of offensive rebounds from said player's misses because such a shot would not have "cost" his team any points directly (assuming they score on the 2nd chance, then there was no "cost", because this second chance would not have been possible if not for the first miss) but rather extended the team's possession and, in reality, cut down on the number of points the other team could have obtained? And how would you reflect this on players who actually grabbed those offensive rebounds? And how do you factor in tempo when comparing player worthiness? In that a player who scores 20 and "costs" his team 30 has more impact if his team scores and allows 90ppg than if his team socre sand allows 100ppg. Or do you completely ignore them in this exercise in numerology?

Oh yeah, lastly, as it seems, you can understand a team's "efficiency" in two ways with your stat. One is seeing the difference in points between max efficiency and actual points per game. The other is percentage difference actual point per game to total possible points scored from all shots. Going by the first measure, it goes T'Wolves, Pistons, Pacers, Kings, Spurs, Lakers, and Mavericks (of the teams I calculated), going by the 2nd measure, it goes: Kings, T'Wolves, Mavericks, Lakers, Pistons, Pacers, Spurs.

Where do I get the stats?? I'm a nut who does them myself..

So much for Artest keeping you interested, looks like you keep yourself interested very well.

Also there are some sites that break down season stats by quarters...

Can you list some of those sites? Some of the sites I've been to online has proven really disappointing in how little information they give.

[Long]

Here's a good site for you to begin with. I use it quite regulary:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/

[Moinllieon]

Here's a good site for you to begin with. I use it quite regulary:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/

I have used it, it's how I've come up with much of my stats throughout this thread. But it's disappointing because it doesn't keep box-scores for playoff games. Nor does it break down stats into quarters like you said some websites do. As compared to its baseball counter-part, baseball-reference.com, it is a sorely lacking site in terms of depth and breadth of stats kept.