« Top 50 Players All-Time, Part 1: #50 to 35 | Main | Ranking The Best Point Guards Of All-Time »
Monday
Sep102012

Ranking The Best Shooting Guards Of All-Time

If Jerry West and Sam Jones played in today's non-stop highlights and advertising hype machine, they'd both be ranked much higher by fans.This is the final installment in our “Best Of All-Time” series, after having already covered Centers, Power Forwards, Small Forwards, and Point Guards. Shooting guards are being ranked last for a good reason: they're an incredibly difficult group to evaluate.

 

***PLEASE READ***
Most fans and media overvalue shooting guards tremendously because they often are a team's leading scorer. Unfortunately, this completely disregards what it actually takes for a team to win a game, and these rankings are all about which players could best improve a team's odds of winning. Having one guys score a lot of points sounds good, but if that same player's FG% and eFG% are poor (or even average), then what value did they add to a club that can achieve an average eFG% simply by passing and sharing the ball more? If a high-usage SG with average or lower shooting efficiency also isn't a particularly efficient passer or creator (few SG's are), then it's really hard to justify how they're helping their team's offense by being so ball-dominant.

 

Not only that, the perception of how good a SG is is often based on highlights. Scoring in a way that is difficult may require a lot of skill, but repeatedly trying to do so does not add value to a team trying to win. Shooting fadeaways or while barreling down the lane out of control or while double teamed looks great if it goes in, but it hurts the shooting percentages in the long-run, and ultimately hurts a club (and often hurts teammates' confidence and desire to work to get open). Also, high-scoring SG's usually aren't defending at a level that is truly affecting another team's offense. Centers and power forward can do a lot to help their team's defense, great defensive PG's can screw up the opponent's execution, and determined SF's usually have enough size or speed to guard multiple positions. SG's can only have a real impact on that side of the ball if they are a true shut-down guard, but almost none of these guys are (those are usually specialists like Tony Allen or Andre Iguodala); most of the supposed greats aren't even versatile enough defenders to guard anything other than SG's and slow SF's.

 

So again, evaluating and ranking the shooting guards was very hard. All the big names are usually huge scorers, but their efficiencies are all over the place, most of them were only so-so passers, very few made a real difference defensively, and many were huge ego-maniacs who didn't exactly help team chemistry. It's only after considering all of this that one has a shot at determining the impact these SG's had on their club's W-L records. Suffice to say, this is the weakest group historically.

 

 

 

I. Elite Tier

West and MJ are the only two SG's who were superstar team leaders, did many things very well, and did them at a really high efficiency. They both improved how their teammates played (West through exceptional leadership and passing, Jordan through exceptional confidence), and this lead to 15 Finals appearances between the pair.

 

1. Jerry West

2. Michael Jordan

 

Allow me to explain by comparing their major attributes.

 

Attributes, West = Jordan:

fantastic scorers, very efficient
exceptional defensive players, one-on-one and for steals
extraordinary clutch and playoff performances were the norm
both were very good rebounders for guards
both were the best and most aggressive drivers to the hoop in their era
contagiously ultra competitive, limitless drive

Attributes, West > Jordan:
West's passing was so good he was an elite PG for the last 1/3 of his career (MJ was good)
West was a far superior outside shooter, would have been great 3-pt shooter
West didn't berate his teammates into submission (could mesh with more teams)

Attributes, Jordan > West:
Jordan was more athletic
Jordan's teams won more titles (but he had more support and much worse opposition)

 

 

 

II. Efficient Tier

These guys not only put up impressive numbers, but you don't have to wonder how much their over-shooting, ego, and stat-chasing affected their teams. They may not have been the most dominant leaders, but they certainly weren't a detriment to team chemistry that required a great surrounding cast to overcome.



3. Sam Jones

Positives:
efficient scorer (45-47% FG in a league that was 42-44%)
great long-range shooter who would have been good behind the 3-pt line
extraordinarily clutch at the highest level on the biggest stages
very good athleticism, quickness, driving
peak is short due to 4 years college, 2 years military, 4 years backing up Sharman

Negatives:
average defender
although he was C's top scorer and clutch shooter, was reluctantly “the man”

 

4. Hal Greer

Positives:
above-average scoring efficiency
had a great jump shot, would have benefited from 3-pt line
very diverse game with good rebound-assist combos
good defender

Negatives:
plenty of curiously low playoff shooting percentages
very good, but rarely dominant


5. Clyde Drexler

Positives:
very good rebounder for a guard
very good passing and overall passing efficiency for a SG
good inside-outside scoring capabilities
above-average defender
carried ho-hum supporting cast to great heights for 3 straight yrs in a stacked NBA

Negatives:
was significantly worse in the clutch and in most playoffs
almost never took over at a crucial moment when his team needed it
too unselfish

fell apart for 2 years after Jordan decided to destroy him in '92


6. Joe Dumars

Positives:
outstanding defender at both guard positions (MJ said he was the best)
very good shooter
excellent passing SG
great teammate, attitude
could get it done in big moments

Negatives:
was not a face-of-franchise alpha dog – was only a good complimentary player
Detroit bottomed out when he finally overtook Isiah as their best player

 

 

7. Ray Allen

Positives:
great outside shooter, even when tightly defended
very good in clutch/playoffs
intelligent defender
decent passer
great leader and complimentary player into mid-30's

Negatives:
an outside shooter can't carry a team
needed to be next to other talent (at least a good big) to win

 

 

 

III. Questionable Value Tier

These are the guys with big reputations, but they all were inefficient ball hogs, did not connect with teammates in a particularly positive way, and/or there's enough evidence to make one wonder how much value they added to a team's W-L records. I probably wouldn't want any of them on my team for an extended period of time, so they are not ranked (that's why there's no # in front of their names).


George Gervin

Major Questions:
horrendous defender
drove teammates and coaches crazy
bad in the clutch and in the most important games
horrible teammate (didn't care about winning, practice, etc.)
was a major off-the-court distraction


Allen Iverson

Major Questions:
terrible shooting percentages
way too many turnovers
drove coaches crazy
alienated and brutalized teammates
was a major off-the-court distraction
was true leader who raised teammates' confidence for only 2-3 years

 

 

Kobe Bryant

Major Questions:
continually overdribbles and takes unnecessarily bad shots
severely overrated defender, especially last 5-6 years
shooting and passing efficiencies almost always worse than rest of team
no stats support clutch reputation (most show the opposite)
very aloof with teammates, they get complacent knowing he won't involve them
can't get along with or mesh with good teammates, can't win without them
team rose/fell with front court, Phil, super high payroll, supporting cast, Fish, refs
Lakers consistently play better without him (including 5-2 last year)

 

Reggie Miller

Major Questions:
terrible defender
very bad rebounder and passer
his scoring numbers weren't that good (career 18 ppg, top-10 scorer once)
far less playoff success than his 5-7 most overplayed clips make you think
a 3-pt shooter can't carry a team
never dominant or transcendent in any way

 

 

 

Past The Top-7

Admittedly odd looking top-7, but everyone else that's "supposed" to be there simply costs your club way too much in terms of efficiency or chemistry. Some of the guys with the most talent misused it (Kobe, Gervin, Maravich), while some with less talent had their heads on a lot straighter and were supreme complimentary players (Greer, Dumars). Ultimately the rankings are based on the following criteria: If I had to add one of these SG's to my team for 10 full seasons next to one decent-to-good center (let's say Patrick Ewing) and a supporting cast that as a group was perfectly average with an average coach and front office, plus our playoff draws as a sum were not particularly lucky or unlucky in terms of opposing styles of play, who would I take to give my team the best chance of contending for titles for that decade?

 

Looking for more players after the top-7 (or even to place as high as 4 or 5), I might look to Gervin or Iverson who in their primes carried some terrible casts to many postseasons but who will ultimately infuriate teammates and coaches and rip the club apart...so probably not. I could go with another oldie in Bill Sharman, who had all the skills you'd ever want in a SG, but it was the 50's so the athleticism/height carry-over is a little questionable. Some guys just didn't play at a high level long enough to be taken seriously as an all-time great (Earl Monroe, Pete Maravich, David Thompson, Sidney Moncrief, Paul Westphal). Dwyane Wade's career is still developing and he's been too injury-prone for me to jump on him as an obvious pick in the top-10, but when all is said and done he should certainly be in this top grouping.

A lot of guys look OK on paper but aren't going to help carry a contender as one of its top-2 players without the other guy being a super-duper star (Gail Goodrich, Manu Ginobili, Dave Bing, Mitch Richmond, Lou Hudson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter). Kobe needs an endless list of perfect-situation advantages for his team to succeed, and Reggie needs a lot of teammates to play well for his very occasional big moment games (seriously, find me more than 10 in his 18-year career) to lead a team out of the first round.

Like I said at the top, the SG group is very weak historically. Fans tend to overvalue this position's worth to a club because they score points and look cool while doing it. There's a lot more to consider than YouTube clips when evaluating a player's influence, which ultimately makes a lot of the most revered shooting guards a liability, or at the least less valuable than a good big man, a heady point guard, or a versatile small forward.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (90)

All I have to say about this article is WOW! I love how you secretly stand out as a lebron D rider. I assume you don't watch any basketball, and highlights or YouTube videos don't really count. Did you really post west over Jordan? Not only that as much as you hate Kobe you would never have him in your team?! Wtf are you smoking I'll start off with kobe then to Jordan's. Kobe has 5 rings look at the big picture, I'll skip out the first 3 rings since your comeback will be Shaq! Your telling me that those 2 rings of his were won by surrounding the team around Gasol? Bynum? Sasha? Morris? Teams win Championships but the team was centered around Kobe. Same with Jordan he was surrounded with talent but that talent wouldn't of done anything without him. Keep your what ifs, and could of's at home. Ask coaches and NBA players they will tell you the top SG it will mostly go like this Jordan, Kobe, West, etc

September 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

I forgot to add please explain to me how gasol or any other laker was a super duper star? You need to add more than a couple of stats and less of biased opinions so it can be a persuasive article. Although I enjoyed reading this thank you for your time. Articles are meant to be critiqued so I apologize if I come off as an A hole just posting my 2 cents which might not be worth anything to anyone. I hope more people can post for a positive debate. (Teehee) :)

September 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

It's late, so I'm not going to post a whole response right now, but this article below goes into some good depth on how the team may have been forced to be "centered around" Kobe, but the reason they won wasn't.

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2010/6/19/pau-gasol-the-real-finals-mvp.html

And again, the Lakers have consistently done better without Kobe than with -- that's counting back with Shaq and now with Gasol/Bynum/Odom. I'd love to hear you explain that one away.


I have way more facts to support putting West over Jordan than you have for the other way, so I'm not sure what you want me to say that I haven't said already. Here's a little more about that:

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/11/1/was-jerry-west-better-than-michael-jordan.html

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

@zach

This article is the equivalent of articles and blogs posted by the Birther movement against Obama. You quickly realize the underlying agenda. If you don't like Kobe because of Colorado, thats ok. But to mask that agenda with articles like this will only move the low and no information reader. Wesrt above MJ is nothing more than an attention grab.

Shaq didn't win before Kobe. Gasol/ Bynum/Odom haven't won anything without Kobe. Kobe is the rare great player who has won without another 1st or 2nd team all nba player on his team.The Lakers win games in the regular season without Kobe, fine. They don't win championships without him.

Magic, Bird, Walton, Russell, Olajuwon, and many other great retired players all speak highly of Kobe and how great a player they believe he is. Of course they don't factor in how they feel about Kobe being acquitted fof sexual assualt charges.

This article is shameful.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

Well just woke up for work and seems like James D pretty much summed it up for me on some parts. West was a great player but do you really think that Jordans opponent were weaker? If anything Jordan was that great that he made his opposition look weak. Sending me links to other blogs isnt facts buddy. If statistics mean everything than wilt, oscar wpuld all be considered the GOAT's, but there not. Gasol the real MVP? Lol gasol is a very good player but your making it out to seem as if he was the one calling in the double teams and breaking down defense. Let me ask you where was gasol in last years playoffs? The year before that? Kobe didn't want gasol traded, people who had a share in the lakers may I remind you NBA knowledgeable people(Magic, Mitch) wanted gasol traded. Odom, yeah he took Dallas to the finals last season. Bynum, wait I apologize he's an elite 3-point specialist so of course he should of carried the team last year. Truth of the matter is once the mediocre players leave LA there nobodies! Can you tell me where the machine is at right now? Farmar? Kwame? Morrison? Smush Parker? Also do you really have Ray Allen up there, smh he's a great 3-point specialist but if your taking his skills in general and his accomplishments over others such as Dwade, KB24 who played in his era and saying he's better, your clearly missing the point of Greatest SG of all time.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

Sorry for the typo* up there. Honestly you need to go back and reevaluate your list and not be biased. I am not sure if you also wrote the other articles on Greates PG, C but if you did I am afraid to read them. Hope you don't have Scalabrine or Kwame as your top 5 centers of all time. "Some of the guys with the most talent misused it" so Kobe's talent was not even a reason to his accomplishments? When you include this sentence in your article, your saying that Kobe was not a single factor for the 5 championships he won?

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

@JamesD
If you have specific facts to indicate that Kobe actually made the teams he was on better, I'd love to hear them. He was an inefficient shooter and passer, especially compared to his teammates, so you can't really claim he made the Lakers' offense better. His defense has no versatility and takes a distant back seat in terms of how it influences the team to the bigs. He's well known for stopping the team's offense, making guys play lazy because they no longer expect to be involved, pisses off the really good players to the point they don't want to play next to him (so thank Kobe for losing Shaq, not getting KG, and don't forget PJ's book trashing how he affected the team), and he spends an inordinate amount of possessions simply dribbling out the clock and then forcing up a terrible shot or passing to someone with 1-2 seconds left on the clock. There's nothing you can point to that he does well with any real efficiency, and consequently you end up with a team that regularly IMPROVES without him on the court. Make up all the excuses for this you want, but it is not the case with any other superstars.

Tell me how many of the following circumstances Kobe doesn't need to still be the leader of a contending team:
1) A top-2 frontcourt OR the era's unquestioned most dominant center
2) The most willing-to-spend owner in the NBA
3) That same owner being a HOFer for doing all that spending so wisely
4) Top-2/3 GM
5) Phil Jackson
6) Unbelievably huge payroll
7) Way above-average supporting cast
8) The presence of Derek Fisher and/or Robert Horry, possibly the 2 greatest clutch role players of all-time
9) Very good and versatile defensive SF's who can always guard the opponent's top perimeter threat
10) Never having a real Western Conference rival at the SG spot for his entire career
11) Playing on a team that consistently gets one of the easiest schedules in the league
12) Playing for the team that has unquestionably benefited the most over the past 15 years from playoff reffing

Seriously, how many of those advantages could you change from "super awesome" to "average" and still have a contending club with Kobe on it? Tell me the least amount of advantages Kobe needs for his team to be a contender. Because his '07 team arguably had more going for it than the team Iverson took to the Finals, the teams Kidd took to the Finals, Pippen's '95 team, the teams of Dominique or Charles in the mid- to late-80's when the league was loaded, Jordan's 88 or 89 teams, etc. yet they all went further with theirs.


On a less related note, blindly placing Jordan over West because you witnessed MJ and are impressed by his highlights and stats without knowing much at all about West is biased on your part, not crazy on mine. Tell me a part of MJ's game that was better than West's that makes up for West's superior passing, outside shooting, and ability to play next to other high-usage players.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

@CYA,
I like how you dismiss the links I sent since they go to blogs and not facts, although THOSE TWO ARTICLES ARE NOTHING BUT FACTS. You're a dolt - at least JamesD makes me think when he remembers to put actual information in his comments (and not just "everyone else says this, you must be crazy" rants).

Go look at the facts dude - those 5 championship teams all played better without him than with him. If you'd actually read the links that are stuffed with facts/stats you'd know this. To completely go against the statistics that show how useless he was to all those champs would make YOU the biased one. Try to support a rebuttal to that with facts.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

@caught in the act

Derek Fisher, 5 rings!!!! He must be the one of the best PG of all time, right? 5 RINGS!!!! That's more rings than Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, John Stockton and Isaiah Thomas combined!

I'm sure you see that rings don't automatically equate to personal greatness, rather team greatness. After all Championship rings are a TEAM award NOT an individual award.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

zach,

I am confident that I know as much, if not more than you do about Jerry West. You should ASK me why I place them ahead rather than reach a self serving conclusion without any evidence to support it. Your "sum of parts is greater than the whole" argument to compare West and MJ lacks integrity. all you do is over value ridiculous unmeasurable things like "plays better with high volume players". Just because players like west more than they do MJ or Kobe doesn't mean he is a better player.

Jerry West had the exact same 1-12 advantages except for Phil Jackson. West has 9 finals appearances and 1 ring and a finals mvp o a losing team. Kobe has 9 finals appearances and 5 rings., plus and MVP and 2 finals MVP's. Both are consistent memebers of the All Defensive teams. So we'll negate Kobe's accomplishments because West's teammates liked him more. GTFO!!

I remind all the Kobe haters-find a game from MJ, Lebron, West or anyone non center that comes anywhere near to Kobe's 48 pt, 16 reb game vs the Kings when DOug Christie was guarding him. Or 62 in 3 qtrs, then when everyone, crapped on him for not going for broke, he followed it a week later with 81. Or the fact he pushed shaq out and then won back to back without him. Or the fact that when Spain was closing in in 2008 the 4 pt play then the assist to DWade. But i'll save my strongest argument for below.

If you ask Jerry West who are the best 2 guards to ever play, he puts himself after MJ and Kobe. So maybe you should email him and convince him otherwise.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

@JamesD

It's obvious you feel Kobe is should be higher in the rankings, which is fine, many do. Could you point to some objective criteria for Kobe fitting the standard of "best improve a team's odds of winning"? Let's avoid pointing to a game or two (all players have good and bad games) or popularity contests, but concrete things that Kobe does specifically to make his team win.

Zach provided his argument in the All about the W's series. I'd like to here yours.

I have no horse in this race, convince me why Kobe is as good as you and others claim. Thanks.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

Zack/GAV did you really have to make 2 accounts? Derek fisher lol again your just being an idiot tell me how that team was centered around Derek and how he is obviously a starter in OKC right now? Did you ever hear "oh mama there goes that Fish dominating and closing the game oh how the lakers PG destroys the other team and makes himself a threat." Do you know how every team playing against the lakers surrounded there defensive plays around Kobe with the ball? Holy shit I must be wrong please tell me how all the teams were constantly trying to defend fisher off the ball since he was the most dominating PG in the league and in his 30's has remained a top 10 player?? As I said all those players without Kobe are shit!! I also didn't get on those blogs for the same reason as this article it makes me pee Red from stupidity...

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

GAV convince you? Why bother just by reading your comments you obviously don't know shit even a smart Kobe hater would say he's good just no where near Jordan, but now your telling me that his achievements alone are not enough to place him as a top SG...You sir make me not want to live on this planet anymore! Sorry for such late replies I just finished taking a deuce and im wiping with my other hand :)

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

GAV here you go buddy:
He and then-teammate Shaquille O'Neal led the Lakers to three consecutive NBA championships from 2000 to 2002. After O'Neal was traded to the Miami Heat following the 2003–04 season, Bryant became the cornerstone of the Lakers franchise.[4] He led the NBA in scoring during the 2005–06 and 2006–07 seasons.[1] In 2006, Bryant scored a career-high 81 points against the Toronto Raptors, the second-highest number of points scored in a game in NBA history,[5][6] behind only Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point performance. Bryant was awarded the regular season's Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) in the 2007–08 season and led his team to the 2008 NBA Finals as the first seed in the Western Conference.[7] In the 2008 Summer Olympics, he won a gold medal as a member of the U.S. men's basketball team, occasionally referred to as "The Redeem Team".[8] He led the Lakers to two more championships in 2009 and 2010, winning the Finals MVP award on both occasions.
Bryant currently ranks third and fifth on the league's all-time post-season scoring and all-time regular season scoring lists, respectively. He has been selected to 14 All-NBA Team (ten times to the All-NBA First Team) and 12 All-Defensive Team (nine times to the All-Defensive First Team). He was selected to play in the NBA All-Star Game on 14 occasions, winning All-Star MVP Awards in 2002, 2007, 2009 and 2011 (he shared the 2009 award with Shaquille O'Neal). He also won the NBA Slam Dunk Contest in 1997.[9] As of April 2012, he has had 5 sixty-point games, 25 fifty-point games, and 112 forty-point games.

That's a few but if you like I can send you to a website with about 92 references, 10 pages of records, awards, accomplishments, career ranking etc.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

Gav:

I reject "best improve a teams odds of winnin regular season games" as how you determine who the best 2 guard is. WHy didn't zach use this to criteria for the other positions? To find a way to justify his placing Kobe 7th, he used 3 paragraphs and 400 words to define how he would rank 2 guards. This is intellectually dishonest and I'd expect you to call zach on this, not support it. It is the equivalent of birtherism. You know the truth but you skew the criteria and facts to make your argument more plausible.

Then, zach assumes you could just plug in another 2 guard and the Lakers would win the same number of titles. No proof, just conjecture. Again, this is not objective fact, its an opinion based largely on the fact that Kobe got acquitted for sexaul asssault charges against a white girl in Colorado.

As for objective criteria, 2 simple points:

1. The number of times Shaq, Bynum, Gasol, Odom, Howard won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP without Kobe
2. The number of times Shaq Bynum, Gasol, Odom, Howard won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP playing with Kobe

If zach's analysis leads him to the conclusion Kobe doesn't contribute much to winning, yet in the real world we know as fact Shaq didn't win before KObe got there, how can we trust the analysis?

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

@GAV
"Let's avoid pointing to a game or two (all players have good and bad games) or popularity contests, but concrete things that Kobe does specifically to make his team win."

Have you ever played basketball GAV? If you have you do know that when you have a great player in your team they will take most of the pressure off the surrounding players, thus allowing better FG%(better/wide open looks). Another thing you might know as well a bad shot from your best player is sometimes better than a good shot by your mediocre players. Looking for a pass first mentality is suited for THE BEST PG article your talking about a SG.

"The shooting guard (SG), also known as the two or off guard,[1] is one of five traditional positions on a basketball team. Players of the position are often shorter, leaner, and quicker than forwards. A shooting guard's main objective is to score points for his team.[1] Some teams ask their shooting guards to bring up the ball as well; these players are known colloquially as combo guards. Kobe Bryant, for example, is a shooting guard who is as good a playmaker as he is a scorer; other examples of combo guards are Jamal Crawford, Allen Iverson, Dwyane Wade, Tyreke Evans, and Jason Terry. A player who can switch between playing shooting guard and small forward is known as a swingman. Notable swing man (also known as wing players) include Evan Turner, Stephen Jackson, and Tracy McGrady.

Notable shooting guards include current NBA players Ray Allen, Manu Ginóbili, Vince Carter, Dwyane Wade, Joe Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Richard Hamilton and former players Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler, Sam Jones, Earl Monroe, Reggie Miller and Jerry West."

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

5,141—Refuting the notion that Kobe is a selfish player, this number represents Kobe's career assists total, good for 41st on the all-time list.

Bryant has also averaged no fewer than 4.5 assists per game for 13 consecutive seasons. Not many players who have scored at the rate that Kobe has can make that claim. The fact that Kobe has often been the Lakers' best-scoring option is responsible for Kobe's reputation as a gunner, which is a tad misleading.

1,722—This figure represents Kobe's career number of steals, which ranks 18th in NBA history.

In the Shaq era he was highly underrated. He was the lock down defender for the Lakers, the closer, and the go to guy when buckets was needed, countless times he saved the Lakers without Shaq even on the floor but let any non Kobe fan or hater tell it and it was all Shaq.

Kobe
26.2 ppg 6 reb 5.3 ast 1.7 stls regular season,
26.0 ppg 5.4 reb 5.1 ast 1.5 stls playoffs

Shaq
27 ppg 12 reb and 3 ast 2.6 blks regular season
27 ppg 14 reb and 3 ast 2.8 blks playoffs

These are their numbers during their 5 year run of 3 titles and 4 finals appearances. How can anyone possibly say Shaq didn't need Kobe? This is as close to a 1-2 punch duo as you can get. But no, Shaq carried Kobe in every single fashion according to the Kobe haters.

Ask anyone and they would say it's the finals that separated Shaq from Kobe, I mean in 2000 finals when Shaq goes up against Rik Smits, Kobe goes up against Reggie Miller, in 2001 Shaq goes up against Mutombo while Kobe faces off against Iverson, and 2002 when Shaq gets the luxury to get matched up against Keith Van Horn and Tod MacCulloch Kobe sees Kenyan Martin on the offensive side and Jason Kidd on the defensive. With the exception of being defended by Mutombo Shaq would have been crucified had he not dominated those finals, not once was he forced to guard an offensive player and only seen one real defender in that span.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

@Caught your act!
I was hoping for a reasonable discussion not a bunch of toilet comments and swearing. Have fun ranting to yourself.

@JamesD

As for objective criteria, 2 simple points:

1. The number of times Shaq, Bynum, Gasol, Odom, Howard won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP without Kobe
2. The number of times Shaq Bynum, Gasol, Odom, Howard won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP playing with Kobe

Hmm what is this suppose to show? Here is one for you:

1. The number of times Kobe won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP without Fisher or Phil Jackson?
2. The number of times Kobe won a title, finals MVP, or league MVP playing with Fisher or Phil Jackson?

See how this doesn't show us anything...

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

@CYA
You really don't make sense and are a little too enamored with things like scoring lots of points with no perspective at all on its context (inefficient, ruins team chemistry, only works when bailed out by amazing offensive rebounders) and very dismissive of things like THE LAKERS CONSISTENTLY DO BETTER WITHOUT HIM. I see wins and losses aren't your thing, but these lists are based on one's effect on those. Kobe's inefficiency suggests he isn't very effective toward that end, and the W-L totals without him in the lineup for his career confirms it. Make up any crap you want for how inefficiency and a team that's better without him someone doesn't point directly to what I'm saying, but keep in mind if you're right, he would be the only player in the history of the game who was both a) amazing at making a team win (what you're contending) and b) had a negative impact on his team's Four Factors and watched his team win at a higher percentage without him. That's one hell of a bias you must hold to think that.

@JamesD
I used the same criteria for every position - helping a team contend in both the regular and post-season. As I've told you a zillion times in comments, my ultimate evaluation is always a player's impact on making a team win. If you really want to get specific about it, I usually think in terms of a player being one of two stars on an otherwise average team - could they contend? I don't expect contention when a single great player plays with an otherwise so-so cast (but some super-greats have that sort of influence and can do it anyway), but if you're truly a top-20 guy all time, you better be doing something unexpected when in that position (think Iverson for 2 seasons).

I'm really hoping you recognize that other factors took place between Shaq joining LA and their titles other than simply Kobe playing more (maybe you've heard of Phil Jackson?), but it's possible you don't. For the record, you do seem really biased on this Kobe thing with no mention whatsoever of what I'm sure you think are my "misplacements" of Iverson or Gervin or Jones or Greer or Drexler -- considering you're a huge LA/Kobe fan, I see where you have room to tell others they're biased when they don't rep your favorite players as much as you want.

And again, I'd LOVE to hear your opinions on the questions I asked earlier:
"Seriously, how many of those advantages could you change from "super awesome" to "average" and still have a contending club with Kobe on it? Tell me the least amount of advantages Kobe needs for his team to be a contender."

September 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

How was Gervin an ¨inefficient ball hog¨ when he shot over 50% for his career and averaged over 26ppg? This is only one example of how completely biased and one dimensional your arguments are. Monroe, Allen, Dumars, and Drexler over Kobe, Gervin, and Iverson. Jerry West over Michael Jordan? GTFO.

September 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRight....

@Right,
You missed the "and/OR" [emphasis mine] article that I used in the explanation. GG obviously was quite an efficient scorer.

You offer zero rebuttal facts for the West/MJ argument, so I have no clue how to respond to someone with an opinion based on....god knows what?

September 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

I just read your article.

Here is something I would like to say. When you "rank" the best shooting guards, your criteria seems to be "helps his team to win" and apparently, according to you, kobe does not help his team win. Now, what I want to ask you first (in regards to that list of "advantages" that kobe apparently has) is how that makes him any worse. Some of those advantages are not even true, but even if they were, that doesn't take anything away from kobe. Every year, things have to happen in order for a team to win the championship. You can't put an asterisk by kobe just because he had a great team, and you can't put an asterisk by kobe just because you value certain stats more than you do others, especially those with small sample sizes. In regards to having a great team, which NBA champions didn't have a great team? There is not a single team that won the NBA championship without a great team. If you take some time and think about all the NBA champions, which of those teams WASN'T great? That list of advantages that you posted, all of your points doesn't say anything bad about Kobe, in fact, most of those opinions are only arbitrarily used by you to make a biased point. For example, having derek fisher and robert horry on the team. How many titles has Derek fisher won without Kobe? 0. How many titles has Robert Horry won without Olajuwon (best center of his time ... owned Shaq in the finals when they met), Duncan (arguably one of the best power forwards who has 4 titles), or Kobe? 0. You can randomly throw in these how many questions with a lot of people. How many titles has Phil Jackson won without Kobe or Jordan? 0.. Does that make Phil Jackson any less great? No. How many titles has Shaq (the most dominant center of his time) won with Kobe or Wade? I hope by now, you get my point .

As to your point about how the Lakers play better without him. I see that you have another article that is already posted on the Ws and Ls of the seasons in which Kobe played or didn't play. I'm going to assume that you did your research and that in the regular season games that Kobe had missed, the Lakers have a better record when he is missing. Now think about it this way. How many games did Kobe miss during that time? Let's say, for arguments sake, Kobe missed 75 regular seasons games in his 16 year career. How many STRONG teams did they play during that time? and how many STRONG teams did they play in those 16 years where Kobe played? Because Kobe is an ironman of sorts who plays through many injuries, the sample size is just way too small for you to have an accurate statistic. What you should instead focus on, is during the games that Kobe played, how many games did Kobe win and compare that to how many games the other SGs played, and see who has a better record. And during that time, you can't say that Kobe has advantages due to his team being better, because Kobe is and was if not the best, than the second best player on the Lakers throughout his career. If a team is good, it has to have really good best players, and if Kobe was on a good team, it means that Kobe was a strong contributor to those teams, which means that he is really good. The fact of the matter was, Kobe's teams still won a lot of games and Kobe's inefficiencies are due to the other team putting all their efforts into making Kobe's teammates beat them by collapsing and focusing their entire efforts on stopping Kobe. Speculation that Kobe's Lakers would have won those 5 championships and got to those 7 finals WITHOUT Kobe is just that... Speculation. There is no way for anyone to prove that to be true unless they can go into an alternate dimension in which Kobe didn't play those games.

Lastly, I am going to compare Kobe to Jordan and West based on YOUR criteria about them.

First, Kobe is a fantastic scorer. You can't say otherwise. The fact that he has the 5th most points ever in the NBA is already a testament to that fact. In terms of FG%, yes, he does not have a higher percentage than Jordan or West.
In terms of defense, he is and has been the best perimeter defender on the Laker for pretty much his entire career. He has the ability to shut down opposing wings, and he does that WHILE spending a lot of energy on offense. Jordan was also an elite defender, and I am not too sure about Jerry West, as he was before my time. He does not have as many steals as Jordan or West in terms of averages, but that doesn't make him any less great at defense.
Kobe is continually voted by execs as the person they would want to take the last shot with the game on the line. Clutch can't be measured by stats (as much as some people like to say) Kobe normally has great playoff games and clutch performances in the eyes of the NBA executives, so if you think you know more than them, I hope that you can use your talents by becoming an NBA executive yourself and NOT voting for Kobe
Kobe is a good rebounder for a guard.
Kobe , when younger, he was a very aggressive driver to the hoop, but because he also was a great shooter, he shot as well.
You cannot say that Kobe isn't as competitive as Jordan or West. He also has limitless drive because he is still the hardest worker in the NBA despite being one of the NBA elite.
Kobe also led his team in assists for his entire career, and still averaged roughly 5 assists a game despite his team playing the triangle which lowers his assist totals. And his career averageswere similar to MJ, who you say was GOOD, despite playing in way more seasons, which means Kobe has to continually pass well to average that much
Kobe is a better 3 pt shooter than Jordan (Jordan didn't take as many 3s), and West WOULD HAVE been a great 3 pt shooter, but Kobe IS a great 3 point shooter... he also has the record for most 3pt's made in a game (12)
Calling out their teammates was something both Jordan and Kobe did, which resulted in a combined 11 titles, whereas West's friendly attitudes toward their team (which is supposed to get more out of them according to you) has only 1 title.
Kobe might not be as athletic as Jordan, but he is close. And definitely better than West.
Kobe only has 1 less title than Jordan, but many more than most players EVER. and West played in a league with only 10 teams.
According to your arguments for Jordan and West, Kobe is VERY close to them, and even if you put those two ahead of Kobe, he is much better than the rest of your list.

I am looking forward to hearing your response.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJon Snow

Thank God for David Friedman!

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterderailer

@Gav

More intellectual dishonesty. Your point is factual, but it doesn't have anything to do with Zach's primary argument: Kobe wins because he's played with SHaq and Bynum,/Gasol/Odom. SO I ask how many titles did they win with Kobe and without him. Zach places more emphasis on the regular season then the playoffs. I'd hope all of us would take issue with that when discussing "winning".

@zach

if you used the same criteria you wouldn't have had to preface it with "please read" and use the extra words in 2 paragraphs to explain it.

the reason I took issue with where you placed Kobe is because I believe your ranking is based on factors off the court, which you havent used for the other people on the list. Your writing has not shown a bias toward the other players so I assume you are giving your honest opinion about where you rank them, with the exception of the Jordan/west positioning, which I stated imo was done purely for shock value. I am not an MJ fan nor much of a Kobe fan, but a huge Laker fan. The most glaring incosistencies of your article references 2 lakers, so of course I would weigh in.

Your question regarding contention is too much like birtherism for me to answer it. As long as you attempt to define winning as regular season wins only, then your conclusions lack honesty, integrity, and validity. You are trying to justify your position by equating a winning regular season with winning a title. Winning 65 games and not winning a title is failure, not success. It is not WINNING. Real basketball fans know this.

You try and equate "the right play"" witrh "the winning play". They are not the same. This was the point Magic was making during the playoffs regarding LeBron. There is a time to make the "right play" and a time to make a "winning play". SO if you use statistical analyses that measure "playing right" and Kobe doesn't score high on it fine. His 5 championship rings tell me that more often than not he has made "winning plays" when it matters most.

You goal with this article was to continue to crap on Kobe and get moreresponses than you have had in some time. So I guess you got what you wanted when you posted the blog. The man you put at #1 says that he is #3 behind MJ and Kobe. But of course he just plays the game, he doesn't analyze it with advanced metrics.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

@Snow,
I can quickly dismiss everything you said by pointing out how little you know about (or are willing to verify) the facts of basketball. Here are 2 centers' head-to-head stats for a series - tell me who "owned" whom:
A: 28 ppg, 60% FG, 13 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 bpg
B: 33 ppg, 48% FG, 9 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.0 bpg
They had similar minutes and fouls. These are Shaq and Hakeem in the '95 Finals. A clearly outplayed B, yet B is Hakeem who you said "owned" Shaq in that series. You're so wrong on this, I can't take anything else you say seriously, especially when part of it is that "Kobe IS a great 3 point shooter" - if only we could check this with the stats. We can! And you're wrong! He's considerably below the league average in 3FG%, so wtf? In case you didn't know this, making up opinions that we can actually look up very easily and then shoot down right away doesn't help you look like someone who knows this game well at all.

@JamesD
This whole "how many titles did Shaq/others win without Kobe" argument is a specious one because those big guys had huge eFG%'s, improved their team's offensive rebounding by a ton, and anchored great defenses -- these are the things you build the Four Factors around. Not inefficient shooting and passing.

I have to preface with "please read" for SG because they're the most grossly mis-valued players in the game. People get way too high on highlights and scoring totals in today's world while avoiding context as much as possible. Not your fault, but it greatly affects how people form opinions about the game, especially LA fans.

To continually say you think I'm mis-evaluating Kobe due to off-the-court issues when I have far more on-the-court facts to back me up than you do (again, an inefficient player with bad clutch stats and a career of worse W-L records when he plays) is just ridiculous. I've NEVER mentioned the rape case or anything about his personal life, yet you bring it up over and over. Either my facts are wrong (you've never shown that to be the case) or you have better ones (waiting) - but you don't, so you fall onto what you think is an easy explanation. I support myself with more relevant facts than you can - I'm sorry this is killing you, but making up reasons I come to my stances is just petty.

West being one of the most gracious and humble players of all-time doesn't make him any less valuable than those he says publicly are better. As a Pitt grad, I can tell you that when Larry Fitzgerald was hot in the Heisman race with Jason White (so crazy in retrospect), LF continually said his own QB should win. That was Rod Rutherford. Should I start believing that Rutherford was a better player than Fitzgerald all because LF is humble? According to you, yes! Kobe kept saying the '12 Olympics team was better than Dream Team, so we see where he is in the "reality of perceived ability" spectrum.

I've said numerous times that I'm using both regular and post-season success in all of this (and have mentioned how numerous players performed in post-seasons and changed their rankings accordingly), so stop pretending the opposite is true.

AND AGAIN: What is the least amount of advantages Kobe needs next to him in order to lead a contending team? At some point it becomes obvious why you keep avoiding the obvious question.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

There are 2 stats that wreck your argument about Kobe:
1. How many plays Kobe is double teamed on (this regards your efficiency argument).
Go ahead and compare the man-to-man defense of times past to the newer zone defenses that Kobe has had to face most of his career. You totally throw this out the window and give higher credit to players that played 1-on-1 most of their careers.
2. Opponents Quality (win/loss records) that Lakers teams faced when Kobe was side lined. You say they did better without Kobe in the lineup, but better against who? Oh, that's right, the Lakers got some easy wins against a small sample size that doesn't include the quality of all the teams Kobe might see over an 82 game season.
You want stats for an argument, then be fair and objectionable. Look up all aspects of efficiency and what affects efficiency before you go writing next time or you make yourself look like a hater.
Here's a Jordan stat for you, his teams that went to the finals have a higher win % of finals games than Jerry West's teams. Do me a favor and plug Jordan's back up's per 36 minutes averages into Jordan's games in those finals, remove Jordan's #'s and see if they still win. Oh, the Bulls wouldn't have won the finals when you do that? I guess Jordan had a direct effect on his team winning.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

AND AGAIN: What is the least amount of DISadvantages do you consider for any of your arguments? When debating or making a point, you are supposed to weigh Pros AND Cons.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

zach

Whatever you choose to build around, the end result wasn't positive until Kobe was in the starting 2 guard position.

I said your dislike for Kobe shapes your perception of him and guides which facts you will use. You reach a conclusion and then utilize only the facts that support that conclusion. That is dishonest and makes the conclusion invalid. I've never questioned your facts, only your lack of using all available.

In no way shape or form am I making up your dislike for Kobe. I trace it to Colorado because thats the only reason any rational person can come up with as to why you dislike someone you have never met and only utilize the facts that support your pre formed conclusion.

Ive stated twice the question is akin to the birther movement. The stuff about easy schedule and reffing. Why would any serious person respond to that? Jerry West had the same advantages, except for Phil, and yet somehow you don't point that out. To single out Kobe is akin to asking for a copy of President Obama's birth certificate-the question says more about you and your motivation then any answer I could give.

What it comes down to is you dislike Kobe and the way he plays, but he still has won. So what you do is pull selected facts to minimize his accomplishments by criticizing him for not playing the way you want him to or the way you teach kids.

So you can continue to point out every day that Kobe plays the wrong way and that he doesn't measure up on the value stats you choose. But the people who he plays with, no matter where they score on these metrics, didn't win a title when they didn't play with Kobe.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

ALSO: You throw around the word "clutch" all over your article. What is your basis for deciding what "clutch" is?
From what I know, "clutch" often refers to end of game situations where shots are needed to be made to win the game. What is your specific and measurable criteria for "clutch"?

THIS is your ultimate?
" Ultimately the rankings are based on the following criteria: If I had to add one of these SG's to my team for 10 full seasons next to one decent-to-good center (let's say Patrick Ewing) and a supporting cast that as a group was perfectly average with an average coach and front office, plus our playoff draws as a sum were not particularly lucky or unlucky in terms of opposing styles of play, who would I take to give my team the best chance of contending for titles for that decade?"
Yet you discount ACTUAL title contention and ACTUALLY WINNING the title. What ifs don't matter, results are the bottom line. Bottom line, MJ has 6 rings, Kobe has 5, West has 1. Those are the bottom line facts, not just theory.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA {catches breath} HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh boy, that was a good one. Thanks for the laugh.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSoCalGal

ALSO: You completely discount and throw out the window the "role" that SG's have and are asked to play. They are asked to shoot the ball and score points mainly. That is the main thing they are trained to do. Within the parameters of their role and what they are asked to do, (which you don't consider in your argument, not that you consider any cons to your point since you are only talking about things that support your argument) scoring points is what they are supposed to do. That is a SG's role, period.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

I really don't see what the big hoopla is about? Basketball has a lot of stats/metrics/aspects on how to value an individual player. Different people value different aspects, i.e. they have different standards. Nothing is wrong with this.

Zach seems to favor how well a team does w/ or w/o a player, and FG efficiency the most, followed up by other stats given above. (note: if I'm misrepresenting you Zach, please correct me).

Others value other things like championship rings, MVP nods, PPG, etc.

What would be interesting is if one standard was agreed upon (doubt that will happen, but hypothetically speaking) and than seeing objectively how players feel into that standard.

Any hoo, I have fun reading the back and forth.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

@SoCalGal
To assume laughter and zero facts makes one right is just plain stupid. Either you can defend whatever position you hold better than me or you can't. You can't. Unfortunately your method of debate/defense is very common for Kobe fans. At least we know your extreme bias with your name.

@Rav
You're just another Kobe fan who walks into this debate blind with no clue whatsoever of what facts and research already exists. Just during the last 8 seasons, LA has faced far more over-.500 opponents than under without Kobe, and they still do anywhere from as well as expected to far better than expected (and when I say expected, I mean with Kobe in the lineup). Just look at the super difficult 5-game stretch in 09-10 that they totally busted up with Kobe on the bench. Or you can be an idiot and ask others who have done more research than you to do even more research and question-answering because you don't know facts or history -- you look like a fool who doesn't know how to read books or use the internet. Either come with the research and facts that show I'm wrong or stay away from the adults table. For example, find EVEN ONE definition of clutch that Kobe's efficiency numbers in that situation look good (by the way, this has been researched all over the internet, you can't).

@JamesD
As I've told you specifically a zillion times, I have no problem with Kobe as a person - it's his fans who are ravenously biased and don't accept facts who I have a problem with. I'm sure we'll be down this road again as you tend to disregard and forget things I tell you many times. I see you don't want to answer simple questions that have really obvious answers that don't support your boy, so I'll ask another: Please explain how an inefficient shooter and passer on a team of several efficient shooters & passers and dominant rebounders/interior defenders should be given so much credit for a winning team.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

Nice response with no supporting substance. Nice dodging of ALL the questions I asked you. Nice STATS that you can show me to prove me wrong (you don't have any, btw). Nice reference to JUST supporting your argument ( though no actual facts). Kobe has played more seasons than 8, and I will not look at a small sample size of a 5 game stretch when I can look at the facts of his ENTIRE career. As far as you asking me to find examples of clutch, you STILL haven't answered my question about what criteria I have to show you. Well, how about this, ALL of the NBA's teams GMs were polled to vote on clutch this year, and guess what, Kobe was OVERWHELMINGLY voted as the player they all considered "clutch" and would want to take the game winning shot for their team. Further expanding on "clutch", there are NO PLAYERS that have a high % efficiency shooting in "clutch" late game situations, they are ALL low %'s. Now take "game winning shots" ACTUALLY made and Kobe has a VERY high # of them compared to ANYONE. You CAN'T prove that wrong because its a fact buddy.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

@Rav
I have numerous articles with supporting substance, you idiot. Either you can find better facts than me or you can't. Polls and opinions aren't facts - try using facts when I ask you to support yourself with facts.

September 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

Since you are into links, here ya go, I even found a nice OBJECTIONABLE piece on Kobe's "clutchness" for you. I stand by the point that the ENTIRE league averages less than 30% shooting efficiency in "clutch" moments while Kobe averages closer to 35%. Above average and better than most isn't efficient? In what universe? Kobe ranks in the top 20 of ALL PLAYERS OF ALL TIME in win shares (this is a little advanced statistic that measures an individual players impact on his team winning). I'm sure you will call me names, won't answer any questions and have no supporting substance to refute me, but have fun. ;)
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1177793-the-15-top-nba-playoff-closers-of-all-time/page/14
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-interesting-nuggets-from-annual.html?m=1
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=truehoop&id=24200

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

Take your own advise and show facts buddy. Or just dodge questions and say "there are articles with facts". That is true, there ARE articles with facts, yours just isn't one of them. I don't expect you to be objectionable with your argument or to present facts to me, but you shouldn't expect anyone to take you serious as a writer then.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRaViNuS

Im back :) Seems like GAV got a little butt hurt and dodged all my facts and focused on me wiping my ass and my swearing.

Zach buddy you need to change the title of your article, maybe: "THE BEST Shooting Guard's that could have!" You clearly dont understand what the SG job is if so please tell me what it is or you can just go to one of my comments up above and copy and paste what I put down as the SG role is to a team. Kobe and MJ have fullfilled the SG role better than anybody else. Since you clearly only love STATS I think Kobe and MJ are the only 2 SG in the TOP 5 NBA All time Scoring Leaders.....Scroll down.....oh shit Reggie Miller and AI are on this too....QUICK QUESTION TO GAV: Where the fuck do I find Fisher at?

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your Act!!x2

@CYA

D. Fish will rise from the land of the Rising Sun and carry the OKC to a Championship this season. The only chance I see of Fisher being stopped is by the mighty Scalabrine who shall rise from the depth of the Abyss along with his pet Kracken.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

Well I see we have some impersonators now. How mature... I did not say:

@CYA

D. Fish will rise from the land of the Rising Sun and carry the OKC to a Championship this season. The only chance I see of Fisher being stopped is by the mighty Scalabrine who shall rise from the depth of the Abyss along with his pet Kracken.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGav

@Rav
1st link: shows he made 4 of 16 shots in last 10 seconds of playoffs games over some undefined period of time = not impressed (pretty sure Fisher topped that)
2nd link: has no facts about his clutch shooting, just opinions = not impressed
3rd link: "Bryant shoots more than most, passes less and racks up misses at an all-time rate. There is no measure, other than YouTube highlights and folklore, by which he's the best scorer in crunch time. " - thanks for helping me out

I really don't think you understand how to defend yourself with facts if that's what you're coming at me with.

September 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

@CYA
So your big defense is that Kobe and Reggie scored a lot of points? Just so I'm clear, that's your big come-back in all this? That's the criteria for evaluation? What if Kobe took every shot for his team last year, scoring 68 ppg (.527 TS% * 5319 team shots * 2 / 82 games) - would that be a good thing for a franchise that's trying to win a championship? It would certainly be difficult and require a lot of skill, but I'm real curious what you have to say about the value of those 68 points in a league that averaged 96.

I defined on the PF page how the position breakdown works.

September 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

zach

your writing and previously removed biography, as I have stated every time you say its Kobe's fans and not you, suggests otherwise. Until you come clean about that I see you as dishonest when it comes to Kobe. Don't blame me for actually reading about the people I read.

I can't answer hate related questions. I can answer why Kobe deserves credit for the Lakers winning championships.

The team had an all star 2 guard in eddie jones. When it comes to the efficient passers, dominant rebounders and interior defenders, they were not able to win a title because they were not able to make enough winning plays, even though they took the smart shots, passed efficiently, and rebounded well and played interior defense. WHen the interior defense, rebounding and efficent passing and shooting was negated by San ANtonio, it was Kobe that made the difference between advancing to the next round and losing early. When fould trouble and missed free throws negated those advantages against Sacramento, it was Kobe's play that made the difference.

So you can continue to choose right over winning, process over results, and continue to hate Kobe. WHat you can't do, no matter what stats you use, it get all those dominat scorers and efficent passers a title without having 1st played with the inefficient bad playing Kobe.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJamesD

And yet the Lakers continue to post great W-L records without him, unlike all of the greats who appeared to actually be efficient in their skills. Oddest thing...

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

@Zach
Yes my big comeback to your clusterfuck is exactly that, I answered your question and I am not asking for a page or link or stat. I am asking for what the SG role is? Once you answer what that role is I would like you to tell me exactly how AI, Kobe, RM fail to qualify as top SG??

I hope I dont get another: "Well you see here @CYA follow this link:www.bullshit.org and as I have clearly stated there I am law and dont need to clarify anything or support my claims. Now CYA I shall throw a stat at you 1zillion% of swear words Kobe, RM have said thus clarifying my point as to why they cannot be rated as some of the best SG in the NBA. A SG needs to have superpowers, a flying unicorn that pisses out rainbows and not have Derek Fisher in there roster in order to be considered Great."

I hope to have Rustled some Jimmies.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

Since the Internet is apparently too slow for you and you couldn't be bothered to do the 5 seconds of clicking it would take to see what I said just the other day, here it is:

"To help clarify exactly what these “Best (Position) Of All-Time” lists are, each one is a ranking of the players at that position who could best improve a team's ability to succeed, both in the regular and post-season; when I say “players at that position,” I mean the guys whose careers best fit into the expectations and role of one particular position, not the players who were the best at being that position (so versatility is indeed quite important)."

You're welcome for that massive time investment I just made into your research. No wonder some of you people seem so clueless in these discussions; the most rudimentary of research is a chore for you.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterZachariah Blott

@Zach

Yes, yes it is :). So from what I understood "I mean the guys whose careers best fit into the expectations and role of one particular position, not the players who were the best at being that position". Im taking that in all your clusterfuck you even managed to confuse yourself. I will admit good sir checkmate and King me I believe I won.

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCaught your act!

You're an idiot.

Reg Season Record - 749-382 (.662)
Postseason Record - 135-85 (.613)
5× NBA champion (2000-2002, 2009-2010)
2× NBA Finals MVP (2009–2010)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2008)
14× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2012)
4× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2002, 2007, 2009, 2011)
2× NBA scoring champion (2006–2007)
10× All-NBA First Team (2002–2004, 2006–2012)
2× All-NBA Second Team (2000–2001)
2× All-NBA Third Team (1999, 2005)
9× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2000, 2003–2004, 2006–2011)
3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2001–2002, 2012)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1997)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (1997)
Naismith Prep Player of the Year (1996)

September 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJeff

@CYA
You can't do research and you try to get into a semantics battle over what "best SG" means in order to avoid what this discussion is about (players bringing value to their teams)...this is why you look dumb.

As far as your love of blindly looking at guys who rank high on lists with no examination or understanding of efficiency, context, or value, I'm curious how you rank a big guy like Elvin Hayes against Bill Russell or Tim Duncan.
Hayes: 27313 pts (8th), 16279 rebs (4th)
Russell: 14522 pts (135th), 21620 (2nd)
Duncan: 22558 pts (31st), 12533 (19th)

How would you rank these 3? Two of them were the unquestioned backbones of team-oriented winning machines and were super clutch - the other was traded in his prime, was notoriously terrible in the clutch, was disliked by players and coaches, and seemed to have no effect on his team's ability to win...but he has all those points and rebounds! Please tell me what order you'd rank these guys in since you're telling me that your elementary evaluation skills are based so heavily on career totals.

September 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

@Jeff
Congrats - he won a dunk contest and a bunch of popularity contests/awards that are based on opinions, and was surrounded by great players on a team with an absurdly high payroll, with HOF-caliber owner, GM, and coach.

I think you're missing what this debate is about if his high school POY award is part of your argument. You seriously might want to reconsider how you're approaching this if that's swaying your opinion on anything.

Again - really inefficient stats and his team has consistently done better without him. If you missed that, FOR YEARS THE LAKERS HAVE DONE BETTER WHEN KOBE IS HURT AND MISSES CHUNKS OF GAMES. But I guess he did win that dunk contest in '97 over Chris Carr and Ray Allen (wtf?) in such lame fashion the NBA cancelled it the next two seasons, so how can I possibly compete with things like how he's affected wins and losses, or Kobe's regularly low APM?

September 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterZachariah Blott

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>