That's a nice bunch of BS. Kobe is by far the better shooter and defender, and is highly underrated with how much better he makes his teammates. Far too often people look at assists as the main thing that makes teammates better when so much more than that goes in to it. But whatever, it's BSPN, so I didn't expect anything less.
I think that's a fair break down. I would say there is a larger gap in the "impact in transition" category then he shows there. He's basing the perimeter scoring just on performance this year (and he makes that clear), but I would expect Kobe's outside shooting to improve as the season wears on, and LeBron's outside shooting is likely to "regress to the mean". So I would give Kobe the edge there, ultimately. "Making teammates better" is difficult to discern, given their different roles as facilitators. I don't know if there's any player in the league, outside of maybe Nash, who gets his teammates better quality shots than LeBron. But Kobe has very talented low-post scorers on his team to share the offensive burden with, so he's not asked to create as much. In the end, its debatable who's better, but the main thing is they're both really, really good. And I also think its sad that most Laker fans will conclude the entire thing is rubbish, ignoring the wealth of analysis from a guy who clearly knows his stuff, simply because Kobe is barely edged out in the final analysis.
That's a pretty dumb response, in my opinion. The presumption that Thorpe based his evaluation on just numbers/hype is pretty simple-minded. People talk about Kobe's performance in the clutch. I have yet to see any robust, evidence-based argument that shows Kobe to be a superior clutch player than LeBron. Indeed, I would say Kobe's superiority as a clutch performer is more hype than substance. He's more likely to hit a pull-up jumper on a final possession, granted. But is he better in the closing minutes of tight games than LeBron? I'd like someone to show me that.
I agree on the transition impact. LeBron is a runaway freight train in transition. Kobe is no slouch, but the combination of LeBron's size & speed can't be matched. I know it's not fair to hold against LeBron, but he does play in the less dominating conference and the Cavaliers are not the Lakers. The Lakers are tested every night because of their history in the league and because the arenas are sold out every game. Cleveland doesn't face the same intensity on a nightly basis. Kobe's teammates have a Championship ring and none of the main guys had success until they teamed with him. Kobe doesn't pass as well as LeBron, but he creates open shots because of all the defensive attention he draws. I'd also give Kobe a 10 to 8 in Pure Scoring. His fundamentals are text book from any area on the court.
I wrote this to him (in the contacts page of ESPN) when I read the article. Probably won't get a response, although I've gotten responses from other writers there before.
I'd love to show you. Watch from 2:11 on, that's 'clutch' time right there. That's about as robust as evidence can get, given all things are equal in terms of circumstances (same teammates, same minutes, same situation). http://www.sports-tube.com/watch/6e3f9d1ba25ef9bb3289/Team-USA-vs-Spain-Gold-Medal-Game-Highlights
What happens when you look at the last 2:11 of all games in which the score is close? What do you think the numbers would show then? We could even restrict it to last few minutes of close games against playoff-caliber teams. But lets not cherry-pick a particular game just because it suits our argument. That doesn't prove anything.
That's definitely not a random cherry picked game; It's the only game where they were in the identical (clutch) situation, all things equal (teammates, opponents etc..), and more importantly, where their 'clutchness' was a mutually exclusive event... and it wasn't like it was a hazy conclusion. It was clear as day who asserted himself, and who disappeared. It wasn't even close. You're not going to find any other instance where all things are equal like that. That my friend, proved to me everything I had already suspected. The difference is, you're a stat guy (correct me if I'm wrong), so you're not going to accept anything other than stats as an acceptable 'argument.' So we will have to agree to disagree, because our principle for basketball analysis differs. But to me, analysis of basketball goes so far beyond stats, especially something like clutchness. I used that gold medal game as my example, because of what I stated above. Both guys had the same opportunity, but only one could be the alpha dog in clutch time.
Your example illustrates that, as a group, they collectively chose Kobe to be the alpha dog down the stretch. To make plays, you need to be given the ball. Kobe was the veteran, the most established leader, and the guy the biggest "clutch" reputation. Its natural that he would be the first option in that situation, even if other players are also up to the task. Kudos to him for taking advantage. But it doesn't mean LeBron James or Dwyane Wade could not have taken over as well, if as a team it was decided that one of them would get the ball. Plenty of NBA action shows they would be quite capable of doing just that. What separates Kobe from those two or anyone else, in clutch situations, is his ability to hit contested jump shots. And there's no question that Kobe draining a contested 20-footer looks more impressive than LeBron barreling his way to the lane for a finish or drawn foul. Honestly, I marvel at Kobe's skill-level. But I would also caution that it is far too easy to mistake "more impressive" with "more effective".
