See efficiency/offensive % possession rate model...not that is hasn't been explained a billion times around here already.

"This is a man who hit seven game winning shots last year. Who is also very proven in the clutch when the game is on the line? Kobe has proven himself over and over again."

Game winning shots are among the most overrated events in sports. They're great, help your team win and get you on Sportscenter, but people who get caught up in them will obviously overlook players that perform well enough at the end of games where a game winning shot isn't even needed to win.

If basketball games were played over the span of 10 seconds, Kobe would easily be one of the best players in the game. But they play a full 48 minutes.

"What happened when Jerry West said LeBron is better than Kobe? Kobe put that noise to sleep real fast by hoisting his fourth ring."

Only in the minds of (most)Lakers fans of course. Objectively LeBron is STILL the best player in the game, and Kobe isn't even the best player at his position.

"What happened when Kobe was quote on quote not as good as Kevin Durant? He quieted that noise in games 5 and 6 when shut down Russell Westbrook! Swept Utah! Beat Phoenix in six! And Won the Finals after beating Boston in seven! No matter how much you hate on Kobe he is proving people wrong time and time again."

Geez, because he sure did all those things by himself didn't he? It helps to play alongside a player in the middle who outperforms you in the Finals in WS/48 mins and is your virtual equal in SPM. Gasol was the best player for the Lakers in the playoffs.

Also, I love how people claimed he "shut down Russell Westbrook" when he simply did something that Fisher didn't do -- play off of him, rely on team defense to defend drives and force him to make the outside jumper. Kobe is a better defender than Fisher, but he didn't exactly do anything revolutionary here.

"Once Kobe gets his sixth ring he will be the greatest Laker of all time."

Ugh, more flawed "rank players by team accomplishments" logic. Skipping this one...

"That fine but Shaq wasn't in top shape for the one he lost against Detroit. And if he would have stayed (315lbs) the years they won as oppose to a whopping (360lbs) when they missed it one year and were eliminated by San Antonio in the second round another then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because Kobe would be at seven right now as we speak."

So wait, how did Shaq come into the conversation now? I thought Kobe won all those titles for LA by himself and was "DA MAN"...? You know, the guy that uses his awesome SUBJECTIVE skilllllllllz to MAKE teams win????

So by that ridiculous argument, how is it not his fault when his team's DOESN'T win?

"SO let’s be real people I'm one of the biggest MJ fans out there and I could tell you that Kobe is right there!"

Oh, but I'm an objective basketball fan. And Kobe is NOT right there. Or even in his zip code.

That was fun.

"Gil, I'll repeat what I was saying in another thread: we can explain more than 3/4 of offensive impact (plus/minus) from the box score alone."

Neil, I think I am not understanding how it is you believe you can separate each individuals' impact, even with (especially with) the noise in plus/minus, and the reality that combinations of players may be better than others, so that the whole of any combination may be more or less than the sum of its parts.

Consistency won't help if we can't agree on the beginning premises.

If I begin a mathematical proof with 2=1, even if my math from them on is flawless and consistent and logical, I can get to some crazy places.

In this case, the beginning premise is that something like "if player A scores 21 points, 8 rebounds and 5 assists and player B scores 18 points, 4 rebounds and 10 assists, I can make a correct comparison of Player A's impact versus player B's impact with no further information". You can refine it to be PER or Win Share, I haven't found a model that incorporates the elements of individual impact. I would start believing it if the modeller told me his model was incorporated some kind of geo-positioning and differentiated contested rebounds from uncontested rebounds, assists for dunks from assists for threes, and assist for mid-range. It doesn't have to be unbelievably complicated, just based on more sophisticated inputs that it uses as its bottom units, since that is how the individual impacts the game. A "point" is just a result that a team generates, not an individual, which is why I stress that I'm all for the team stats.

I just love it how people want to slap the "subjective" label on any analysis using stats such as this site, then turn around and scream at people for not putting Kobe (or any player of your choosing) on top of a best player list, all while using their own, um, subjective criteria to justify the argument.

No one has to agree with any particular opinion here, but would using some consistency hurt?

Talking to myself: Using statistical analysis on basketball with the current stats out there is objective, but only in the sense that it is methodical and consistent given the model.

But if the model and its interpretation are flawed, being objective and consistent does not mean it is right.