ONE: Kicking off the Aussie round-up with the Bogey Man, I’d like to first point out that he is still the league-leading shot blocker. You know, just in case there’s anyone reading this thinking he isn’t All-Star worthy. He’s also 5th in the league in rebounds per game with 11.5, confirming what we already knew – Bogut has to the the second best defensive big in the league behind Dwight. It’s been a remarkable transformation for Bogut over the last two seasons. Think about how he was labelled a few years back – big man with smarts, soft touch, good passer, polished offensive game, etc. Over his first three seasons in the league he averaged less-than-stellar 8.5 boards and 1.0 blocks. Contrast that to the last two season’s averages of 10.6 boards and 2.6 blocks. It really does seem like a different player.
The perplexing thing is, Bogut now seems to be struggling offensively more than ever before. His field-goal percentage is at a career-worst 49%. His free-throw shooting has been woeful this season – 40.9% – and his scoring average is down from 15.9ppg last season to just 13.2ppg currently. Sure, we have to attribute some of this to Bogut’s return from injury – he has repeatedly said that his arm/elbow feels NQR, and it might be another full season before he regains full strength. But I’ve always been a glass half-full kinda guy, which is why I’d prefer to focus on AB’s strengths – that being his beastly defense. But even his D hasn’t stopped the Bucks from raking up the losses. In the past 10 days they’ve lost very winnable games against Philly, Houston, and Memphis (today). Their two wins were against the worst two teams in the league (Washington and Cleveland) so there ain’t exactly a lot of positives flowing around the Bucks camp at the moment. Of course, because the East is shithouse, they only find themselves half a game out of 8th, and 1 full game out of 7th. And on paper, surely the Bucks have the talent edge over Indiana, Charlotte and Philly (all currently above them). Right?
Over in Portland, Patty Mills has been getting a steady stream of minutes (12.4 per game over his last five), but he seems to be suffering from the same offensive deficiency as Bogut. Patty is shooting a somewhat lame 7-25 from the field over his last five games. Don’t get us wrong – we want Patty to keep shooting. By all means, make Andre Miller redundant because he’s fast approaching his expiry date anyway. But it would be nice to see that FG% closer to 40% than it is to 20%. Unlike Bogut’s Bucks, the Blazers have hit a nice patch of form winning their last 5 and standing clear in 8th out West – just half a game behind Denver in 7th.
Over in New Orleans, David Andersen’s minutes continue to be quite sparse. He managed to shoot 3-3 in just 6 minutes against Atlanta during the week (the flogging game), but other than that it seems DA is being used only as a backup to the backup to Okafor. Andersen recently spoke to Hoopsworld about his minutes, admitting that it’s been tough:
Unfortunately, the playing side has been a bit hard because we have a lot of bigs. For me, the minutes have been very tough but they already had their system in place and they had been winning a lot of games before the trade. I’ve been around the block for awhile. I’ve only been in the NBA for two years, but I was in Europe for a really long time and won a lot of championships over there. Coming here, I suppose people just don’t really know me as a person or player so I’ve kind of had to prove myself all over again. Going forward, if I do get more of a chance, I feel that I can impress the coaches and contribute to the team, helping them in any way possible. The biggest thing for me is to be a contributor on the team and help teams win. At the end of the day, I just want to be in the mix and in there playing ball.”
TWO: As we reach the halfway mark of the season, certain MVP questions start getting thrown around. Questions such as “is Blake Griffin the MVP?” But one of the more interesting questions that’s been recycled lately is whether the NBA should award an MVP for both the East and West? The crew at Buckets recently asked just this question, and then went about retrospectively awarding the East/West MVPs for every season since 1990-1991 (Lebron would already have 4 MVPs according to their bestimations). A fun read and certainly a fun question. What’s your take? Would handing out an MVP for each conference somehow “cheapen” the award?
THREE: There’s nothing that warms my pants as much as learning about a new Aussie basketball site or blog with good original, opinionated content. They don’t come around all that often. But recently one did and I’d be doing a community disservice if I didn’t throw a href and an equals sign in its direction. The blog is the Kidney Stings, a site dedicated of course to the NBL’s Sydney Kings, as well as the NBA, basketball and “other straight dope”. Last week they posted up a very entertaining read on the NBA’s Twitter fascination, Lebron, Melo and B-Roy amongst other things. A couple of choice excerpts:
The All Star game is coming up, and NBA players have been turning to their armies of Twitter followers for support… Lamar Odom, Rudy Gay, and Kevin Durant among them…
Lebron James is on Twitter, but he doesn’t need people to vote for him. Instead he uses Twitter the way Jesus used loaves and fishes, to entertain, inform and to inspire.
If you’re a Kings fan this blog should be part of your daily reading. And if you’re not, check it out anyway. I will be.
FOUR: Did you know that Vince carter hit 20,000 points during the weak? (pun intended) I wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for Mookie’s post over at A Stern Warning. It’s amazing to think you can score that many points when you’re only playing half a season and shying away from pressure the rest of the time. But alas, Vince Carter somehow did. Actually, it’s completely unsurprising that he did. Vince Carter will go down as one of the most – if not THE most – athletically gifted player in NBA history. You cannot NOT score that many points with the talents Vince has. Just remember that between 2000 and 2002 you could have a decent argument as to whether he or Kobe was better. Kobe obviously destroyed that argument in time, but still, it was an argument at one point (just as T-Mac vs Kobe was in 2002-2004). Here’s the other thing you should also remember about Vince – throughout his gloriously spectacular high-scoring rim-stuffing career, he never once made the All-NBA First team. For now though, lets just enjoy the remnants of Vince and reflect on the good times. Here are a few of my favorite Vince moments.
Vince on Ben Wallace (look where he jumps from)
Vince with the ridiculous alley-oop (look where he catches the ball… in the middle of the freaking key)
Vince’s top 5 windmill alley-oop dunks (holy shit… you show me another player who’s done ONE windmill alley-oop dunk, let alone has a top 5)
Vince’s first dunk at the 2000 All-Star game (the crowd/player/commentator reaction of this will never be topped in an All-Star dunk comp… note Ray Allen collapsing on the floor very unsmoothly)
FIVE: So you might have heard that today is the five-year anniversary of Kobe’s 81 point game. Worth checking out ESPN’s clip of Jalen Rose (who was a Raptor in that game). Cue random thoughts on Kobe’s 81…
In five years the feat has only served to become more epic. At the time we were a little spoilt by Kobe – he scored 62 in three quarters a month earlier, and the following season he would top 50 points for four-straight games. So yeah, the 81 stood out but it didn’t seem out-of-reach given Kobe’s powers at the peak of his game. Remember, before his 81 Kobe had topped the 50-point mark through three-quarters on four separate occasions – the 52 against Memphis in 2002 (#2 on his list of 50-point games), 51 against Denver (#3), he scored 50 through three against MJ and the Wiz (#5) and of course the 62 against Dallas (#6). Fact is, Kobe could have topped 80 a couple more times if those games had have been close.
Now that Kobe’s scoring binges are behind us, we realise what the 81 truly means. It was Kobe’s Everest. The summit on top of the mountain that dwarfed all other mountains. The best one-game offensive display from arguably the most talented offensive player in NBA history.
It’s also pretty obvious that no one else is coming close. Lebron and Wade have already had their run at leading a one-man team. Neither of them have hit 60 yet, and they surely won’t playing together in Miami. Allen Iverson – one of the greatest offensive guards ever – also never came close. Kevin Durant might have a shot, but I honestly think he’s too unselfish to ever seriously approach that mark.
Talking to one of my work colleagues a couple of days back, we both agreed that only Kobe stood a chance in hell of dropping that many points because he maintained three essential qualities:
1) Obscene talent – Kobe had every shot in the book. Every single one. Only a few guys in history can claim this, and I’m certainly not ruling out more in the future (i.e. Durant).
2) Unparalleled confidence in his shot – This is the reason Kobe takes and makes ridiculously low-percentage shots. He trusts his shot more than any other player in the history of the game. He trusts his shot too much (see Boston, Game 7).
3) Extreme tunnel vision – Kobe can get in a zone and block everything out (including his team mates and coaching strategies) more than any other player I’ve seen. Earlier in the week Phil Jackson mentioned that Kobe was better as sustaining that “zone” than anyone he’s seen. Watch Kobe during his 81. You don’t see chest-bumping, trash-talking, arrogant smiles or any sign that he’s actually enjoying what he’s doing. It’s business. It’s Kobe burying his head in an exam paper, only lifting it up when the buzzer sounds at 48 minutes.
These are the reasons Kobe can score 81, and the reasons that no one else has come close in the history of the NBA thus far – apart from Wilt for obvious reasons (the game is different now, we have the 3-seconds in the key rule and offensive goal-tending… or else Shaq probably could have scored 80 earlier in the decade). There might be players with an obscene level of talent on the offensive end, but do they have enough confidence/stubbornness to keep taking unfathomable shots when they’re tripled teamed? And when they top the 50-point mark, the 60-point mark, will they remain focused enough to keep going? Can they resist the urge to put their weapons down and take a few plays off?
Even Michael Jordan didn’t approach this level. Yes, I went there. Despite Michael’s talent and ruthless competitiveness, he never sustained that kind of scoring binge over the course of 48 minutes. Some people might point to the different era and the “it was much harder to score back then” / “MJ could score 100 now” argument. I don’t really buy that. Consider this – MJ averaged 37.1 points per game in the 1986-87 season. That’s almost 2ppg more than Kobe in 2005-2006. Jordan clearly didn’t have any trouble scoring that year – he topped the 50-point mark on seven occasions (for comparison, Kobe did it ten times in 06-07). But still, for all his scoring dominance, he didn’t score more than 61 that season. He even had two games where he jacked up 43 field goal attempts (only three less than Kobe in his 81 point game), but failed to score 50 on both those occasions (and they were both losses). And interestingly, in his season-high of 61 against Detroit, he didn’t attempt a single three-point shot. That stat alone points to a very fundamental difference in Kobe and MJ’s game.
But I’m drifting from the point here. The point is that the argument that MJ never topped 80+ points because it was the 1980’s is a moot one. Scoring 37ppg over a season proves it. MJ dominated everyone that season. He had plenty of big scoring games. Yes the defense may have been tougher but he still averaged more than Kobe ever did. He had the ultimate green light to shoot. He could jack 40+ shots and not incur the wrath of his coach. He was at the athletic peak of his powers. And despite all that, he never came close to a feat as great as Kobe’s 81.
Now, MJ was no slouch and is obviously the GOAT. But again, when it comes to the pure – and perhaps somewhat meaningless – pursuit of high-volume scoring, I’ll argue that Kobe did it better than MJ, any day. MJ ticked box 1 (the obscene talent) and most of box 2 (the confidence in his shot, albeit with a weaker outside shot). But even he knew when to call it a day. Even he knew when going 1-on-4 was futile and that passing might be the better option. Even he started applying the breaks when he hit 40, 45, 50. Kobe back in 2005-06, simply didn’t. Those things weren’t options. They were outside the tunnel.
And on that tunnel vision… Truth is, it did just apply to singular games. Kobe applied it on the macro level too. He averaged 40 points for an entire month TWICE in the 2005-2006 season. He’s done that four times throughout his career. Michael Jordan never did it once. If there’s any stat that proves Kobe had access to a greater arsenal of offensive weaponry, it’s that one. When you come off a 40 point game, a 50 point game, the opposition is blindingly aware of it. They’ll go to extreme lengths to stop you doing it again – it’s just how it works in the NBA. “This guy ain’t getting that hot against us!”. To keep doing that over a 12-15 game span and repeatedly nullify the defensive strategies designed to stop you is absolutely off the charts. Kobe was able to do it because he had every trick in the book. He was able to do it for the three reasons I outlined above. The 81 is when it all came together, perfectly.
SIX: Hardwood Paroxysm are in love with Blake Griffin. Aren’t we all? Check out their two recent posts by Zach Harper and Matt Moore – well worth the read. As for my own thoughts on Mr Griffin? Stay tuned for next week.
« « Previous Post: MELOpoly Update
» » Next Post: Most Valuable Protagonist
vs San Antonio - Game 6 (L) 17/05/13
70%
Andrew Bogut (GSW)
Patrick Mills (SAS)
Aron Banyes (SAS)
20 Comments until now.
Nice post.
I like what you did with Kobe there. His potent scoring ability is just as much due to his talent as it is a manifestation of his inherent weaknesses. This is something that is often neglected when people write about Kobe and in my opinion is what makes him such a polarising figure.
His weaknesses (the over-confidence and tunnel-vision) allow him to do things no one else can.
His weaknesses are actually what set him apart from Michael Jordan.
This is why there will never be another Kobe Bryant. And I don’t say that to worship Kobe (far from it, I hate the Lakers). I say it because we will never ever see another player so beautifully flawed.
damn those Vince highlights are sick. 10 years later we still haven’t seen any one dunk like him.
regarding the MVP thing, I really don’t think there should be an East/West award. especially when there has been such a wide gap between the conferences over the last decade.
Agree it would be good to see Patty getting that FG% up, maybe opposition teams are starting to pay him some more attention?
Looking forward to the Blake Griffin post… that guy is nuts.
“beautifully flawed”. a nice way to describe Kobe there, Eric.
the other remarkable thing about that 81 point game is that Kobe kept getting to the line late in the game. you watch someone like T-Mac for example, when he scored 62. he was just bombing from everywhere late in the game because he felt he couldn’t miss.
with Patty, i think its unfortunately a case of poor shot selection too. i’ve been watching a few of his recent games and I think he’s actually forcing the issue a little too much. he won’t earn more minutes by scoring – i think he’ll earn them with his play-making alone. and he does that very well off the bench.
Rob, really enjoyed your thoughts on Kobe’s 81 and the MJ comparison. It’s a discussion that’s been done to death but you’re arguments are refreshing. Albeit with no shortage of back-handed Kobe compliments
i really do feel sorry for Henry Abbott sometimes.
http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time
dude spends way too much time trying to undermine Kobe with stats. does it every year. its getting pathetic.
@peteD: Don’t feel sorry for Henry Abbott. He put together a well-written, flawlessly argued article.
Perhaps you don’t like what it proves, but that’s a different story.
Kobe’s a great, great offensive player, but anyone who cares at all about facts rather than hype couldn’t possibly argue that he’s anything but mediocre in crunch time – which is all that article is saying.
If you don’t like the “stats”, maybe read the quotes from Phil Jackson.
@Ant, his article is actually full of flaws, as the post at Silver Screen and Roll points out (Rob tweeted the link).
the quotes from Phil Jackson are 5 years old ffs! he only brings them in to support his pathetic arguments. the whole article is sickening, and I’m not even a Laker fan. i feel sorry for you if you think thats a well-argued article. i’d rather read Bill Simmons rant aimlessly without anything based on fact than read Abbotts number-driven bullcrap.
It’s interesting. I don’t have a problem with the article, per se. But I am disturbed at the amount of effort Abbott expends trying to undermine Kobe. Over the years the number of articles is alarming, including the one where he analyzed Kobe’s Top 10 dunks and concluded he was selfish (that actually made me laugh out loud).
What puzzles me is how clutch stats can possibly contrast so heavily with perceived reality? Why does 80% of the basketball world think Kobe is the most clutch player when stats prove he isn’t? There’s no other type of stat that causes such disagreements – and generally that is the entire point of a stat. To provide irrefutable facts.
Then there’s the Michael Jordan argument. No one has analysed Jordan’s “clutch” stats because I don’t think we have access to them all. But if you did, what would you find?
I think you’d find he was average in the clutch, just like Kobe, owing to a huge number of shot attempts and lots of double/triple teamed shot attempts. Of course no one remembers those. We only remember MJ as the most clutch player in history (rightly so… right?)
So how on earth can I believe in a stat that tells me Michael Jordan is anything less than the most clutch player in NBA history, when I KNOW this to be true?
The same could be applied to Bird, Magic, Reggiee, etc. You think all those guys would come out on top of these clutch stats? Of course not. They’ll be further down the list behind the “Carmelo Anthony’s” of their time.
These stats, unfortunately, prove nothing.
If I’m coaching against Kobe and he’s taking the last shot, I’m throwing everything at him. I’m shitting myself. Abbott’s article gives me zero comfort. Because history – and stats – go out the door in crunch time.
Abbott is a known Kobe hater, no news there. But the numbers don’t lie. You can say what you want about how the stats are defined (I agree that its hard to quantify “clutch”), but the numbers don’t lie.
So as to your question Rob, about why it seems to conflict with widely-held opinion, I think it simply proves that clutch – historically – hasn’t been measured in numbers. Clutch has always been an intangible quality. We all knew what it was, but the question of how to quantitatively measure it was a meaningless one.
Until now. People like Abbott are measuring it and basing analysis on it. “Clutch” is simply moving with the times, with the hunger we now have for more information/data. From now on, I dare say stats like these will play a big part in how we measure “clutch” and who we label “clutch”. Whether we like it or not.
the MJ argument is an interesting one Rob. I have no doubt that MJ wouldn’t be #1 on the list of clutch stats. And I imagine people would be criticizing such analysis even more than they’re currently doing with Kobe (hence why Abbott is probably avoiding doing so).
I also have no problem with Abbott’s article, but even I have to admit, it does come across as petty Kobe-hating. He’s written the exact same thing before a couple of years back (notice how he went quiet last season when Kobe was hitting game-winners every second week).
He doesn’t write articles around “Why Ray Allen isn’t clutch” even though Ray is barely above Kobe in those rankings. Lebron James only shoots 2% better. Why the need to write 5000 words making it about Kobe?
This is going to get a bit messy, so I apologise in advance, but here goes:
robd: “What puzzles me is how clutch stats can possibly contrast so heavily with perceived reality? Why does 80% of the basketball world think Kobe is the most clutch player when stats prove he isn’t?”
I think Abbott’s explanation is the correct one here. I.e. we only remember the makes, not the misses, and Kobe has the most makes. But I’ll go even one further – it’s not just that we don’t “remember” the misses (which makes us seem like idiots), it’s that we often just don’t see them. I.e. unlike the makes, no-one’s going to send us a YouTube of the miss if we haven’t watched the game live.
And if you think about it, how many games can we possibly watch of any one team in any season? Even the Lakers, who are on TV more than anyone, it’s like 20-25 at most, right? Which is about 1/4 of the season.
Now consider that Kobe makes roughly 3 in 10 in the clutch. Now, we’ll see all 3 via YouTube, but of the 7 misses we can only be expected to see 2 or so. So in terms of SHOTS SEEN by us, Kobe’s really shooting like 60%, and that’s if you’ve watched 20-25 Lakers games. Pretty damn impressive, right? And GMs/players aren’t exempt. I’d wager most watch less games than some of us hardcore types, especially of teams like the Lakers who don’t really have any potential young players you might want to trade for.
robd: “If I’m coaching against Kobe and he’s taking the last shot, I’m throwing everything at him. ”
Hey, me too. But that’s because we know he’s pretty unlikely to pass, right? The argument isn’t “Kobe sucks, let’s leave him open”, it’s that if you double and triple team him, he’ll still shoot, which will obviously cripple his %s.
CP4: “He doesn’t write articles around “Why Ray Allen isn’t clutch” even though Ray is barely above Kobe in those rankings. Lebron James only shoots 2% better. Why the need to write 5000 words making it about Kobe?”
Well, because the story goes that Kobe is the clutch maestro supreme, not anyone else. Listen, I don’t think Abbott is necessarily the most entertaining guy to read. But his site is and has always been called TRUEHoop. His background is in journalism, which values truth and honest investigation over entertainment. To him, setting the record straight is important, whether it be on the Donaghy scandal or the perception of players. So if you want to call him a hater of anything, call him a myth-hater.
Finally re: The Silver Screen and Roll article rob re-tweeted…it’s nonsense. Cherry-picking (which is the accusation) only applies when you have a heap of information and you pick out what is most useful. Henry did not do this. He used what data was available. Was it incomplete? Sure. But anyone who’s familiar with 82games or other stats sites would have immediately recognised the years Henry used, because they were the ones available. Ditto for quoting from Jackson’s 2005 book – it’s not like he had another book to quote from, that was the only option.
@Ant, “To him, setting the record straight is important, whether it be on the Donaghy scandal or the perception of players.”.
This is the problem I have. He seems preoccupied with the perception of Kobe. He isn’t writing because of “honest investigation” or to conclude on some interesting analysis. He’s writing to say “hey, Kobe isn’t as good as you think he is”, which to me is the most pathetic type of journalism there is. I could do all kinds of statistical analysis to paint a negative picture about a player. Stats can be used to do anything.
I could probably show that Tim Duncan is the worst FT-shooting power forward to ever play the game. But I wouldn’t bother because I prefer to celebrate all the great things Duncan does. Would you agree? Or would you sit here defending Tim Duncan saying he is still the best PF of all time despite whatever the stats say?
And why do you think “Kobe is the clutch maestro supreme” in the first place? There’s a reason he’s built that perception. Why the need to tear it down? I would understand that if Kobe started losing playoff games or a championship because of poor clutch play, then hey, that’s something topical to write about. That is good journalism. Not this pointless jab in Kobe’s direction, which is based on nothing other than a strong anti-Kobe sentiment. And if you can’t see that, then I feel sorry for you.
and just out of curiosity, how would you feel if Abbott did this analysis to prove Jordan was merely “average” in the clutch?
after all, Jordan is the “clutch maestro supreme”, arguably more so than Kobe.
is that a perception that needs to be corrected?
@CP4:
If he seems preoccupied with the perception of Kobe, it’s because the perception of Kobe is the one that’s furthest away from reality (in his opinion, and mine too with a few exceptions). Now, you might think that arguing about perceptions of players is trivial or whatever, and that’s fine. But he’s not picking on Kobe for no reason. He’s picking on Kobe (and again, I stress it’s not on Kobe but the Kobe myth) because it’s the one that’s most far-fetched.
Don’t really understand your point re: Duncan. You couldn’t prove something that’s patently false for starters, and secondly I would not have Duncan as the best offensive PF of all time to begin with (remember, stats can only measure offense, not defense).
Your final point I answered in my first response to robd.
As for Jordan, YES! I would absolutely love to find out exactly how good Jordan was in the clutch. If we had play-by-play from the Jordan years I’d do it myself, it’s a really interesting question.
And if the perception of Jordan was incorrect, then sure, I’d love for the record to be amended to say that maybe he wasn’t the hero we thought he was.
It’s about truth, not stories.
Some good discussion here. And I agree with most of your points Ant. Most…
Here’s my 2 cents.
I think Kobe is the #1 player I’d want with the ball in his hands to win a game. For arguments sake, lets say I think he’s the most clutch player in the league.
Now, that opinion is not based on stats. Of course it isn’t! We’re not computers. We form opinions based on what we see, and what we feel, and I’d like to also think based on what we know – about basketball in this case. I’d consider myself a “expert” in that field.
Here lies the problem. The counterargument, that Kobe isn’t actually that clutch, has to rely on stats and numbers. You can’t support it based on what you’ve seen, experienced, felt, etc. For a lot of people, it seems completely contradictory to the opinions they’ve formed.
Ant, you say this is because of selective memory, and that we remember the makes more than the misses. True.
But if we can’t remember the misses, if there aren’t countless examples of Kobe failing in big moments when it mattered, then don’t you think that’s why we formed the opinion in the first place that he is the “clutch maestro supreme”?
Aren’t YOU being selective in your own right by failing to provide an opinion that Kobe isn’t clutch without relying on numbers? Show me a list of all the clutch moments that Kobe really screwed up, and tell me what the outcome was?
Did he ever cost his team a championship by his bad clutch play? Did he ever miss a last-second shot in a playoff game that cost his team the series?
I’m tipping the answer to these questions is “no”, which is why the dude has won more playoff games over the last decade than anyone. Why he has 5 rings. Why this perception was formed.
Sure you might point to a forced last-second shot against Orlando, an airball against Phoenix, or a miss against Oklahoma. But the Lakers actually won all those playoff games. Selective memory, or just valuing winning above all else? If the Lakers had lost those games, if they had been knocked out by OKC last season, or lost to Orlando in ‘09 – THEN maybe our perception would be different.
But it’s not. We struggle to reconcile Abbott’s numbers to our opinion because our opinion isn’t based on the numbers.
Looking forward to the reply
eddy, I think the argument that stats don’t capture the whole moment (which robd also brought up) is reasonable. My objection would be less that “we’re not computers” and more that the sample sizes are so small that a few extra makes/misses would change the picture for any player on the list.
“Aren’t YOU being selective in your own right by failing to provide an opinion that Kobe isn’t clutch without relying on numbers”
I mean, my opinion is quite simply that Kobe shoots too much and doesn’t pass/drive enough in key situations. That said, if my team is down 1 or 2 with 3 seconds on the clock, I’d take Kobe as well. As I said in the piece I wrote over a year ago (robd tweeted it recently), I think Kobe’s the best at making difficult shots. But he’s also the best at making shots difficult for himself for no good reason. So if I have more time on the shot-clock, I’d go with someone else who will actually run the team’s offense and/or use team-mates.
“If the Lakers had lost those games, if they had been knocked out by OKC last season, or lost to Orlando in ‘09 – THEN maybe our perception would be different.”
I don’t understand this at all. We’re talking about Kobe, not the team. Unless you think he’s a Wizard who can guarantee a win even if he misses? Sure, he’s had good luck (and good team-mates), but what’s that got to do with it? He still missed. If you want games that cost his team the series, I could give you 2003 Game 6 vs. Spurs where Kobe goes 1-7 in the last quarter and Spurs outscore them 32-13. Or his 1-6 last quarter vs. Pistons in Game 4.
But I’d also point out the Suns series in 2006, for example, where Kobe played amazingly in crunch time yet they still got rolled. Should he get bashed for that one despite playing great? Surely not.
Ultimately, I’d love for us to have video of every single crunch-time moment that Kobe’s been involved with and compare it to that of other players. But for now, the stats are an OK approximation. And of course we keep trying to use our eyes and watch as much basketball as possible.
@Ant, some good points. Nothing like a good Kobe discussion
You might point to Game 6 2003, but what about Game 5? Kobe turned down a potential game-winning shot to pass to Robert Horry. The shot went in and out. If that goes in the Lakers probably four-peat. So again its a case of selective memory.
Of course, Kobe has had plenty of poor fourth-quarters. You’re bound to when you play 4,000 of them.
To your last point, I don’t really think stats are an OK approximation to measure “clutch”. That’s evident by the fact that Chris Webber and Karl Malone are above Kobe in the clutch % rankings. Webber and Malone!!!
“Clutch” to me, includes a heavy dose of willingness and fearlessness to take that last shot, no matter what is thrown at you. Kobe embodies that definition.
I can’t remember the exact quote from Phil Jackson, but a few years ago he said something like “every player says they want to take the last shot, but few actually make it happen. Kobe genuinely wants it”
Sure he might make only 30% in that narrow statistical definition, but I’ll take a fearless guy that shoots 30% and has done it countless times before, rather than an efficient crunch time player who hasn’t hit a game-winner in his life.
Comment!