Why is Kobe considered inefficient?

[Deuce Bigalow]

[/B]


Yeah, cuz he wasn't getting the calls he was in 2005....

Officiating was affecting his shooting, not his touch....get that straight.

29.4 PPG in '01 Playoffs
30.0 PPG in '03 Regular Season
32.1 PPG in '03 Playoffs

Next

[bwink23]

Any number of things.

The main thing is, the dude with the 55% probably scored more points on less shots.......... WAS MORE EFFICIENT SCORING THE BASKETBALL

****ing A you people are dense.

Your RREEEAAACHINNGG....so you can only GUESS on what happened....and tell me this, are you gonna look up the FG's, FT's, and 3's as well???

You know you would....so why do you need TS% again??

[barnett114]

Yeah, cuz he wasn't getting the calls he was in 2005....

Officiating was affecting his shooting, not his touch....get that straight.

He took more shots and scored less points. It's that simple.

That's why his TS% was higher even though he shot .433 from the field. He took 20.1 shots to score 27.6 PPG. In 08-09 he took 20.9 shots to score 26.8 PPG.

But you need a new excuse because TS% doesn't fit your argument.

[Inactive]

The average SG this year is shooting 42.1 FG%, 47.9 EFG%, 52.1 TS%. Kobe is shooting 44.3 FG%, 47.2 EFG%, 53 TS%.

Let's compare to another top scorer:

The average SF this year is shooting 42.6 FG%, 47.9 EFG%, and 52 TS%. Durant is shooting 51.6 FG%, 55.9 EFG%, and 61.2 TS%.

See the difference?

In previous years, it's been the same thing. Kobe shoots approx. average, or slightly above average, for his position. Now, he's still a great scorer, because he can take so many shots, without his efficiency dropping dramatically. Sometimes that means he ends up costing your team higher % shots, when he takes too many himself. Sometimes it saves your team, because he can create for himself, when the defense is shutting everyone else down.

He took more shots and scored less points. It's that simple.

That's why his TS% was higher even though he shot .433 from the field. He took 20.1 shots to score 27.6 PPG. In 08-09 he took 20.9 shots to score 26.8 PPG.

But you need a new excuse because TS% doesn't fit your argument.

He knows he's wrong, and he'll never admit it. Let's not turn this into another "PER and TS%" thread, lol.

[bwink23]

He took more shots and scored less points. It's that simple.

That's why his TS% was higher even though he shot .433 from the field. He took 20.1 shots to score 27.6 PPG. In 08-09 he took 20.9 shots to score 26.8 PPG.

But you need a new excuse because TS% doesn't fit your argument.

does having a TS% higher in 2005 than in make him a more efficient scorer than in 2009 cuz the refs gave him more FT's?? LOL

I THINK NOT>

[barnett114]

You know you would....so why do you need TS% again??

You are a fucking dumb ass.

True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

[bwink23]

The average SG this year is shooting 42.1 FG%, 47.9 EFG%, 52.1 TS%. Kobe is shooting 44.3 FG%, 47.2 EFG%, 53 TS%.

Let's compare to another top scorer:

The average SF this year is shooting 42.6 FG%, 47.9 EFG%, and 52 TS%. Durant is shooting 51.6 FG%, 55.9 EFG%, and 61.2 TS%.

See the difference?



In previous years, it's been the same thing. Kobe shoots approx. average, or slightly above average, for his position. Now, he's still a great scorer, because he can take so many shots, without his efficiency dropping dramatically. Sometimes that means he ends up costing your team higher % shots, when he takes too many himself. Sometimes it saves your team, because he can create for himself, when the defense is shutting everyone else down.
He knows he's wrong, and he'll never admit it. Let's not turn this into another "PER and TS%" thread, lol.

Kobe in 2005....43.3%FG, 33.9% from 3, 81.6%FT.
Kobe in 2009....46,7%FG, 35.1% from 3, 85% FT shooter....and you want to tell me he was more efficient in 2005 cuz if his TS%....

PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN SON....

[bwink23]

You are a fucking dumb ass.

True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

Kobe in 2005....43.3%FG, 33.9% from 3, 81.6%FT.
Kobe in 2009....46.7%FG, 35.1% from 3, 85% FT shooter.

Thinking Kobe was a more efficient scorer based on some retarded TS%, makes you the DUMBASS SON.

[Droid101]

does having a TS% higher in 2005 than in make him a more efficient scorer than in 2009 cuz the refs gave him more FT's?? LOL

I THINK NOT>

The refs didn't "give" anyone anything. Players who drive to the basket get fouled more. Also, skilled players are good at drawing fouls.

[Deuce Bigalow]

bwink23 go back to watching space jam

[Pointguard]

I don't get it.

The league average for FG% from 2000-2010 was around the 44-46% range and that is exactly the range Kobe shot from 2000-2010, so how exactly was he inefficient? How is he also inefficient when he always shot in the 55% to 57% range in TS% when the league average of TS% from 2000-2010 was always around the 52-54% range?

If I had to take a guess though it is because Michael Jordan's FG% was always in the 50% so the fact that his FG% was below Jordan's FG% all of a suddenly makes him inefficient opposed to not being as efficient as Michael Jordan. I think some people need to fix their word usage here because that doesn't make Kobe inefficient, just not as efficient or as good as MJ.

It's pretty funny how bad these MJ-Kobe comparisons have damaged Kobe's legacy.


Here are the actual League average for FG%

2000-2001 - 44.3%
2001-2002 - 44.5%
2002-2003 - 44.2%
2003-2004 - 43.9%
2004-2005 - 44.7%
2005-2006 - 45.4%
2006-2007 - 45.8%
2007-2008 - 45.7%
2008-2009 - 45.9%
2009-2010 - 46.1%

Kobe's FG% from '01-'10 (his prime) +/- means how much better or worse than it is compared to league average.

2000-2001 - 46.4% - +2.1
2001-2002 - 46.9% - +2.4
2002-2003 - 45.1% - +0.9
2003-2004 - 43.8% - -0.1
2004-2005 - 43.3% - -1.4
2005-2006 - 45.0% - -0.4
2006-2007 - 46.3% - +0.5
2007-2008 - 45.9% - +0.2
2008-2009 - 46.7% - +0.8
2009-2010 - 45.6% - -0.5

Funny for three of the seasons of the four seasons where his FG% were seasons where he suffered injuries. (all except '05-'06).


Here are Kobe's TS% and eFG% compared to the league average

Kobe's TS% from '01-'10 (his prime)

2000-2001 - 55.2% - +3.4
2001-2002 - 54.4% - +2.4
2002-2003 - 55.0% - +3.1
2003-2004 - 55.1% - +3.5
2004-2005 - 56.3% - +3.3
2005-2006 - 55.9% - +2.4
2006-2007 - 58.0% - +3.9
2007-2008 - 57.6% - +3.6
2008-2009 - 56.1% - +1.5
2009-2010 - 54.5% - +0.2

Kobe's eFG% from '01-'10 (his prime)

2000-2001 - 48.4% - +1.1
2001-2002 - 47.9% - +0.2
2002-2003 - 48.3% - +1.0
2003-2004 - 46.8% - -0.3
2004-2005 - 48.2% - the exact league average
2005-2006 - 49.1% - +0.2
2006-2007 - 50.2% - +0.6
2007-2008 - 50.3% - +0.5
2008-2009 - 48.8% - -1.1
2009-2010 - 48.7% - -1.4

To me he's been on par - he's a bit hot/cold so we see some really bad shooting nights. Superstars should be shooting more efficiently than the rest of the league, tho. Also, he takes a lot of shots when he has a great front court that shoots the ball at a much higher clip than the rest of the league. The thing in favor of Kobe is that he keeps pressure on the defense because he attacks from all over. He keeps coming and its unbalances the defense.

[bwink23]

You are a fucking dumb ass.

True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

So you don't need TS% AT ALL....right?? Since the info is already there.

Obviously, if a guy shoots better in all areas of scoring( FG's, 3's, and FT's) he is the BETTER SCORER.....no matter what your stupid TS% tells you....take that to the bank you FOOL>

[barnett114]

does having a TS% higher in 2005 than in make him a more efficient scorer than in 2009 cuz the refs gave him more FT's?? LOL

I THINK NOT>

Kobe in 2005....43.3%FG, 33.9% from 3, 81.6%FT.
Kobe in 2009....46.7%FG, 35.1% from 3, 85% FT shooter.

Thinking Kobe was a more efficient scorer based on some retarded TS%, makes you the DUMBASS SON.

Forget TS% and FG% for a second 27.6 PPG on 20.1 FGA or 26.8 PPG on 20.9 FGA

You don't get it because you are a stupid motherfucker.

[chazzy]

Don't get baited by bwink - he'll never understand how the distribution and volume of your shots matter in addition to the percentages

[Droid101]

Don't get baited by bwink - he'll never understand how the distribution and volume of your shots matter in addition to the percentages