Taking shots like this will generally make you less efficient but….

[tpols]

Kobe shot 16/24 in that game. 73 TS and 129 ORTG. Super elite efficiency.

For the whole 2009 playoff run he averaged 30/6/6 on 47/35/87 splits.

So despite taking those tough shots... he was very efficient. If he wasn't? Say he shot like 35% or whatever? The Lakers wouldn't have won a ring that year. The only reason they did is because in that run his tough shots were falling.

If Kobe shot like he did in 2004 every single playoff run nobody would be repping him. Because he wasn't making these shots at the same rate and his team was upset because of it.

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Best 'tough shot' maker in history.

I would argue he's the greatest 'heatcheck' player in history too. When Kobe got goin, he pulled bazookas out his bag.

All of that made him great. Maybe not 'GOAT' great, though still up there with a short list of people.

Kobe shot 16/24 in that game. 73 TS and 129 ORTG. Super elite efficiency.

For the whole 2009 playoff run he averaged 30/6/6 on 47/35/87 splits.

So despite taking those tough shots... he was very efficient. If he wasn't? Say he shot like 35% or whatever? The Lakers wouldn't have won a ring that year. The only reason they did is because in that run his tough shots were falling.

If Kobe shot like he did in 2004 every single playoff run nobody would be repping him. Because he wasn't making these shots at the same rate and his team was upset because of it.

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.

Well said, bud.

Suppose when dudes argue efficiency, they're debating "45%FG vs 50%" which is about a shot a game. Not much difference, but game to game, pretty significant.

[tpols]

It's also demoralizing to a team for them to give their best effort and still be dominated. Kind of puts a little quit in their step to know they played perfect defense and still got crushed.

But it's all contingent on the ball going in the basket. If it misses continually in will have the opposite effect and galvanize the opposing team increasing their confidence instead of sapping it. Like... this guys playing retarded and losing them the game. That's what Chauncey Billups said rallied the pistons to shit on the Lakers in 2004 happened. If Kobe actually hit the shots in that series the outcome and vibe would've been totally different.

[Kblaze8855]

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.

Nobody does. You just make a wild extrapolation to that conclusion because such black and white things are easy to argue and the meat of the discussion is conceptual where there is much more nuance and wiggle room. It’s like someone saying “Money won’t necessarily make you happy.” and you say “I can’t believe people deny money makes life easier”.

Its just ducking the real discussion by dumbing it down to a point nobody disagrees with to claim the undisputed win against nobody.

Whatever you think being efficient entails Kobe was less that than a lot of worse players. That doesn’t mean efficiency doesn’t matter. It means there’s a discussion to be had.

[Kblaze8855]

I'd argue vigorously that the only reason Kobe isn't a consensus top 10 GOAT is because of his hero ball shot selection.

Is anyone really consensus top 10 once you get past the top 5ish? There’s a wide range of guys on the same basic level after the true goat guys.

[Kblaze8855]

At the end of the game you can either run a play to get Steve Novak a spot up look, or if you dont wanna risk turning it over you can bring Marshon Brooks off the bench to “create his own” and heave something up. Theres as much chance his shot will go in as there is Tatum’s.

I don’t know if that’s a sentiment A Pimp Named Slickback can cosign

[FultzNationRISE]

I don’t know if that’s a sentiment A Pimp Named Slickback can cosign

This is not a shot most NBA players cant make 1 out of 3 times. He ran parallel to the arc for a moment and then rose up for a shot. It went in that time, many times it did not.

Danillo Gallinari could do that. Tim Hardaway Jr could do that. Tons of players in the game can do that. That shot was not some miraculous feat.

Actually, statistically, Kobe’s track record in those situations is TERRIBLE. So the idea you “need a Kobe for those situations” makes no sense at all.

Coaches usually let the star player just take every late game shot these days bc theyll get ran out of town if another player takes it and misses. Its just to cover their ass with an excuse. “Well I gave it to our star!” If a team wins, because it’s a good team, fans invariably overrate that star and act like all those wins were bc Him and all those clutch shots were bc Him.

I dont think thats the actual thing thats happening when a team is successful, personally.

[FultzNationRISE]

Half this message board truly, honestly in their heart believes Fisher ONLY made this shot because Kobe was also on the court and his presence transferred some kind of mystical will to win into Fisher’s mind.




In reality, a lot of NBA players can hit tough shots in crucial moments. Ofc the odds are always against any player. But the idea of “needing a closer”… I think thats a talk radio and gatorade commercial idea that fans have just bought into because it sounds great.

[Baller234]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t think that anyone being able to make a lucky shot means it’s not generally better to have a Kobe/Bird/Jordan to give the ball to create a late shot than to select a player at random.

If I have time for a one or two dribble pull-up I’d much prefer a KD to take it than some player selected at random.

Would you disagree?

[warriorfan]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.

They can’t see the forest for the trees.

[Kblaze8855]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

The way people talk the 2 shot difference between super efficient and garbage is the difference between two teams that both take 80 shots and end up 126-114. As if it changes the whole game if someone else missed the shots instead. As if every miss would be converted to a make if the star who missed left it to some nobody to take instead.

All that matters in the end is if your team scores more than the other team. Out of 150+ taken it doesn’t matter a bit who exactly misses the 35-40 the team is gonna miss no matter what.

Kobe missing 3 shots doesn’t mean some role player makes them and his bad shot cost the team anything. It’s just easy to assume all misses were better off not taken or taken by someone else because that hypothetical outcome is unknown.

[tpols]

Half this message board truly, honestly in their heart believes Fisher ONLY made this shot because Kobe was also on the court and his presence transferred some kind of mystical will to win into Fisher’s mind.




In reality, a lot of NBA players can hit tough shots in crucial moments. Ofc the odds are always against any player. But the idea of “needing a closer”… I think thats a talk radio and gatorade commercial idea that fans have just bought into because it sounds great.

Forget Kobe because you obviously have a vendetta against him.

But if you think giving the ball to Derek Fisher over like... MJ or Dirk for gamewinners that arent miracle .4 seconds on the clock having heaves... youre simply out of your mind. Yea, anybody can make a prayer. But if there's like 5 or 10 seconds left there's a huge difference in capability.

You can hate on Kobe all you want even though in these select playoff runs he was statistically, factually efficient en route to rings, but you can't discount the concept in general.

[FultzNationRISE]

]If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.[/B] As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.

Bro the average margin of victory in the NBA is like 4 points

Increasing your teams ppg by 5 points because you got two better shots over the course of the game is literally the difference between the bad teams and good teams in the NBA.

Everyone in the NBA is a paid professional. Lesser teams get higher draft picks. It’s all geared toward parity.

A couple extra good shots per game makes a huge difference in team record by the end of an 82 game season or a post season.

But frankly, if you enjoy the NBA because of the hero narratives it produces, even if I dont think theyre based in reality… thats okay.

You see it however you prefer to see it and I’ll do the same. It’s all good.

[FultzNationRISE]

Forget Kobe because you obviously have a vendetta against him.

But if you think giving the ball to Derek Fisher over like... MJ or Dirk for gamewinners that arent miracle .4 seconds on the clock having heaves... youre simply out of your mind. Yea, anybody can make a prayer. But if there's like 5 or 10 seconds left there's a huge difference in capability.

You can hate on Kobe all you want even though in these select playoff runs he was statistically, factually efficient en route to rings, but you can't discount the concept in general.

Im not saying having a tough shot maker on the court at the end of the game isnt helpful. Im saying that ability alone doesnt justify a guy playing sub optimal basketball for the whole game until that point.

Good teams tend to win even without their “irreplaceable stars” all the time. Teams with good records do not fall apart when Kobe sits, or TMac sits, Or Kyrie sits. Or if Ewing is out. Or when MJ skips a season. Or if Giannis misses a couple playoff games, or if Luka does.

Check the history on this sort of thing. There are exceptions of course (often involving Lebron). Individuals are way, way overcredited for the success of good teams in basketball. It’s simply the truth.

But again, to each their own.