Originally Posted by
FellowTraveler
Yeah, I would consider James an historically great scorer. I just don't know how to define "great scorer" in a way that excludes James and includes Bryant, given that James scores more and more efficiently. This isn't figure skating; there aren't style points. If Player A scores more and more efficiently than Player B, I can't call Player B a better scorer.
Come on. Really? In which season did Lebron James average 35 PPG, again? Who scored more again this season, when Lebron was healthy and 26 while Kobe was playing his 16th season with one hand? You're using Kobe's first couple of seasons and injury-plagued years in which he averaged low-30s minutes to support your argument, which we both know is silly.
I do agree James isn't a great shooter. (Neither is Bryant.)
Bryant is a MUCH better shooter and shotmaker than James. And almost every jumpshot Lebron takes is barely contested because it's what the defense wants him to take, so please don't just make some sarcastic comment about percentages as "proof" that they're roughly equivalent in this sense. They're just not.
The whole conversation suffers from a sample size problem, which is one of several reasons why I find the "closer" question highly overrated.
I agree. I've never said James was a bad closer, and you were the one who referenced the "data" in this context.
That said: Do you really think a career's worth of data doesn't mean anything more than a single season's worth of the same type of data?
Rephrased: do I think that a group of 14-15 data points from this season is roughly equivalent to 12 data points over the last 7 years or so? Absolutely. Perhaps even more relevant, given that they are more reflective of his current mindset. But again, I wasn't the one who presented this statistic as evidence.
That would be an odd stance to take as a result of concern over the small sample size represented by the career data. It also seems a bit odd to argue that despite his success "closing," James isn't a particularly good closer because he doesn't look good at it and we don't have enough datapoints to override that appearance.
So basically, you're saying it's odd to make a basketball observation that there is insufficient "data" to conclusively prove? Gotcha.
What does "being Kobe" mean? Scoring a lot in "clutch" situations?
No. Again, my point here the entire time has been that James has seemed to change his style of play in the last couple of minutes at times, particularly in the past couple of years. I specifically described what I meant by this earlier.
Kobe's offensive game: isolating, methodically working his way to a spot where he knows he can make a shot, getting the defender where he needs him to get the shot off, and knocking down the shot. Again, he's a pure scorer. That's what I mean by "being Kobe". That is NOT Lebron's game, which is more dynamic but less polished/repeatable. However, I have noticed that Lebron sometimes tends to revert to this type of more tentative, finesse approach at the end of games, and I believe he would be better served sticking to HIS game, rather than trying to emulate how "traditional" closers play.
If that's it, it looks to me that James is at least as good as Kobe at being Kobe and can do things Kobe never could:
---
What are you defining as "clutch time"? Does it take score into account? Time left? Home/away crowd? Take desperation shots into account? What about win/loss outcomes? What would the EFG% be? What about if TOs were taken into account? FT%? Percent of team's shots taken? Points that were created/assisted by others, rather than manufactured by the player? Can you quantify "pressure"?
So is it really just about style?
...or is it really just about leaning on certain statistics than barely begin to quantify one of the most qualifiable traits in basketball, in which every data point in the limited sample is extremely unique?