Comments on: Do Guys Really Play Better With Kobe & Phil?

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:01 +0000

Ive heard the argument for some time now that Phil Jackson's greatness is overstated because he has had the fortune of having arguably the three most dominant players of the last quarter of a century (Jordan, Kobe, Shaq) so how hard could it be to win with those guys? Or so the theory goes. Because Red Auerbach, the previously crowned King of Coaching had to deal with such slouches as Bill Russel, Bob Cousy,Tom Heinsohn John Havlicek, and KC Jones. While there are many flaws in that line of thinking, among them, how obvious it is that basketball is not a game that allows for the possibility for one player to take a team all the way to the championship solely on his back. (see KG's playoff history in Minny). Even Jordan needed Pippen. Other than that, this theory ignores the real issue of coaching Mega super stars. Egos. The Zen Master is and has been, well, a master at managing the many different egos on his teams. Jordan's tremendous ego has been well documented (see his HOF induction speech) as has Pippen's (his famous refusal to re-enter a game in the fourth quarter) Dennis Rodman's various transgressions and moody behavior...as well as almost his entire team's almost constant feuding with GM Jerry Krause. Through it all he managed to coach the moody, arogant bunch to six titles in eight seasons. In LA, the land of high salaries and enormous egos, he managed to keep the relationship between Shaq and Kobe together long enough to win a championship...before it finally imploded. We still don't know the whole story of what really happened. Then in recent seasons, with the Lakers seemingly falling from grace, and Kobe the superstar threatening retirements and demanding trades, Jackson managed to squelch those flames and rally both his superstar and his underacheiving supporting cast to what turned out to be his 10th coaching title. So...I think you could say he does make players better, but I think its more that he gets his players to act better, and the result is better play, and more wins.

By: Alvy

Alvy — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:26:39 +0000

Actually, Phil Jackson does make players better, I'm sure D. Berri published something about this. Also, the way you conducted the research is silly. Since when is same player still comparable even after huge age gaps? In essence, if an old Grant played well with the Lakers as he did with the Bulls, then the support goes in favor of PJ&KB., etc.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:05:01 +0000

Very interesting thread. I agree that age should be accounted for. I also see two other major questions.

First, how do we know that any differences are due to Kobe and Phil and not some other factor? For example, how does being on a good team affect individual stats? Were these Lakers different in effect from any other top team? This should be easy enough to figure out by adding team record as a hypothetical independent variable and testing whether it correlates to better or worse individual stats. It would also be interesting to compare the one Jackson-free season to the others.

Second, should we really equate individual stats to "better play"? Players are asked to play different roles on different teams and a reduction in stats doen't necessarily mean they are playing worse or vice versa.

By: Walter

Walter — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:28:29 +0000

I think the study absolutely supports the Kobe makes teammates better argument. Look at the WS/3000 minutes so that the stats are normalized for games and minutes played and the results are staggering....
I am going to focus on Kobe's second era 2004-2010 (the one without Shaq) and list the change in WS/3000 minutes for those players who played with Kobe and with another team during that era:
Shannon Brown 8.6
Smush Parker 5.7
Trevor Ariza 5.2
Pau Gasol 4.7
Brian Cook 3.2
Lamar Odom 2.9
Ronny Turiaf 2.7
Chris Mihm 2.2
Didier Ilunga-Mbenga 1.6
Derek Fisher 0.9
Vladimir Radmanovic 0.8
Ron Artest 0.4
Kwame Brown 0.4
Josh Powell -1.1
Maurice Evans -2.3

So out of the 15 players who played with Kobe and without Kobe, only 2 played worse with him than they did without him. Both of those players were also back-ups who played very few minutes with Kobe so the fact that they are negative is not a surprise as all.

Also, it would be interesting to see what the FG% is for players during seasons on the Lakers and seasons not on the Lakers. Most of the players that have played with Kobe and another team have had there career highs in FG% with the Lakers. Kobe may not get the assists that Nash or Paul get, but he draws so much attention with double and triple teams that he creates the opportunities for his teammates to get better looks than they typically have on other teams. This I would say is "making teammates better".

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:58:22 +0000

Well, the flip side of that is Artest struggling to fit in this year, Tyronn Lue turning into a borderline starting-caliber PG after the Lakers didn't re-sign him, VladRad going from a solid contributor in Seattle to an increasingly marginal performer in L.A., Rick Fox going from underrated with the C's to massively overrated with the Lakers, etc. I think you can find cases either way, but the question I was trying to answer wasn't "Will any random player play better when he joins the Kobe-Phil Lakers?" as much as it was trying to determine whether the following statement is true or not: "In the past, players have played better with Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant than without." Do you see the distinction? There's some overlap, but the former is a question of cause and effect, while the latter is simply a factual statement. I'm not saying a random player wouldn't have a better chance of playing better with L.A. than with another team, I'm just saying that in the past, players who have played with both the Lakers and other teams have (at best) played the same in both places.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:34:18 +0000

Oh, and I forgot Chucky Atkins. Where's he these days anyways?

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:31:07 +0000

I don't quite understand here why you'd try and over-complicate with win shares. Smush Parker was at best a fourth-string guard everywhere he played without Kobe; with Kobe he averaged 10 points...a game!! (And then he complained that Kobe was the problem) Kwame Brown had his best years with all normal averages (points, rebounds) with Kobe. Devean George the same. Both of them are barely hanging around in the league without Kobe!! Trevor Ariza can't create his own shot, but he gets more of them in Houston. But his best years will still have been with the Lakers. In Orlando and New York, he barely even made it off the bench. After playing with Kobe and Phil, he got an enormous contract from Houston, probably the last such big contract he'll get. Brian Cook hasn't been the same since leaving the Lakers and he, too, barely makes it off the bench in Houston. Slave Medvedenko, likewise, is no longer even in the league, but he was a viable role player with Kobe and Phil. The basic fact is that a lot of guys who otherwise wouldn't even be in the league--or if in the league, permanent bench warmers--have played out of their gourds with Kobe and Phil. Averaging 10 points a game--or even 5, 6, or 7 for some of these guys--is something they could only do with Kobe and Phil. Without them, well, they could always seek employment with 27-year-old Smush Parker right now, couldn't they?

By: Natty

Natty — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:44:44 +0000

First, the most obvious is that this analysis is ridiculously simple, simply measuring the difference between players performances on the Lakers with Phil and Kobe versus not on the Lakers. That obviously is going to lend itself to a skewed result, as first off it doesn't take into account what stage players are in their careers, what roles they'll be playing, etc. As the first commenter notes: "Sorting by whichever category, it seems obvious that those who have performed worse are typically the older guys who took on smaller roles with the Lakers, e.g., Malone, Payton, Green, Grant, Richmond, Harper, et al." Furthermore, not only is it older players who are going to be taking on a smaller role with the Lakers. Virtually any player in the league who joins the Lakers will have to take on a smaller role (Ron Artest for example), and thus will have a decrease in their numbers. The question of whether Kobe makes teammates better is questionable. But that Phil Jackson makes his players better? Looking at individual player statistics will tell you next to nothing-it's the win-loss column that counts, not to mention championships.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:28:49 +0000

Not to hijack the thread here, but if you couldn't make it in practice w/ MJ wouldn't you get canned or traded and hence not be on the roster? Even sucks like Stacey King and Dickey Simpkins dealt with it and performed (sort of) when necessary.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:19:26 +0000

I disagree with that, J. Jordan's practice habits had the potential to make his teammates. But they had to step up to the challenge. There were plenty of guys who crumbled under that very pressure. Getting better is always up to the player himself. Credit goes to Jordan for fostering that environment, but again, I think that falls in the category of making things easier (in that the crucible was readily available, rather than seeking it out in the off season, or having to constantly push oneself) rather than actually making someone better.

You can take a horse to water . . .