Kobe Versus LeBron

Evidently the question of whose better is a controversial one, and many of ESPN.com's writers think the right answer is Kobe. I was toying with the idea of making a chart, but this is so not even close that it's hardly worth borrowing. Suffice it to say that LeBron is scoring more points on better field goal percentage and better true shooting percentage, plus he has a higher assist ratio and a lower turnover ratio. Plus he's a better rebounder, and he has a higher usage rate (i.e., does more to carry his team).

It's true that Kobe's a better on-the-ball defender, but unless the Lakers have changed strategies radically without me noticing they don't normally use him in a defensive stopper role so it's not as if, in practice, his edge on this front is so crucial as to outweigh the fact that he's worse across all these other dimensions.

Comments

There's also the fact that Kobe is a selfish prick whose own teammates can barely stand him (this is why Shaq left the Lakers), while LeBron has friends all over the league.

Posted by joel | December 21, 2007 4:41 PM

Yeah, say Kobe lovers, but ask any NBA coach who they would want taking the last shot of the game for them.

On that note, James is actually starting to build a rep in that department but Kobe stills edges him on that criteria just because of his history.

Posted by Abe | December 21, 2007 4:41 PM

"Who's better." I still think it's Kobe and that you're underestimating the defensive factor, which matters more in the playoffs when the games actually count.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 21, 2007 4:44 PM

"this is so not even close"

Yup.

Kobe is a lovely player, but he can't single-handedly drag an average team through the playoffs.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 4:44 PM

This is bizarre. Who are these people? Let's name names.

Yeah, say Kobe lovers, but ask any NBA coach who they would want taking the last shot of the game for them.

I guess we can't ask who is more likely to render the last shot of the game irrelevent by playing more effectively for the previous 47 minutes.

This looks an awful lot like the reasoning of the clutch hitting fetishists in baseball commentary.

Posted by djw | December 21, 2007 4:46 PM

Evidently the question of whose better is a controversial one ...

Help! He's been struck by an Ivy League education! He's delirious, the poor boy!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 21, 2007 4:50 PM

Broussard almost hit it on the head:

Kobe would win a game of one-on-one and a checklist of skills, but all things being equal (including age), I'd rather have LeBron on my team.

Kobe would indeed win a game of one-on-one, but I'd rather have LBJ on my team even without considering age.

He's just a more valuable player. No question.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 4:50 PM

I agree with Matthew absolutely on this. The next time I hear someone refer to Kobe as "the best player in the game," like it's not even subject to debate, I'm going to puke. In case nobody noticed, Lebron led a team to the finals with a supporting cast just as bad as Kobe's. LeBron is almost average a triple fucking double! Already, at age 23, LeBron is a Jordan-Bird-Magic type of player. Kobe is simply the best of the Vince Carter/Tracy McGrady types -- outstanding players, but because they're wingmen who don't do a whole lot other than score, they're not going to be as valuable as studs like LeBron.

As far as the "last shot" thing, LeBron has a pretty clutch history. Ask the Pistons. Ande Kobe's FG% in those last-shot situations is very bad (I'd cite some #s but I can't remember where I read them anymore. 82games.com, maybe).

I'll give Kobe the on-ball defense, although LeBron's getting better. James is Kobe's equal in scoring and he's better at everything else. He's like Magic with Jordan's athletecism (and, unfortunately, the same jump shot both guys had when they were 23).

Posted by too many steves | December 21, 2007 4:51 PM

"This looks an awful lot like the reasoning of the clutch hitting fetishists in baseball commentary."

No. Hitting the last shot in a basketball game requires a very specific skill set.

Check out the excellent bullet here from "TrueHoop reader Ben" about why Kevin Garnett and Chris Webber are seen as 'non-clutch' players.

Kobe is the best player in the association to take the last shot because he's the best one-on-one player in the association.

However, LeBron is still a considerably more valuable player to have on your team.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 4:55 PM

Kobe only wins a "checklist of skills" if you don't consider passing and rebounding to be "skills."

And I think LeBron's 22, not 23.

Posted by too many steves | December 21, 2007 5:03 PM

Thank you! Did one of those guys at ESPN really say they'd rather have Kobe taking a last shot than Jordan? Over the years I've agreed with the spirit of the "you'd want Kobe for the last shot" argument, but it's been way blown out of proportion. Are there a series of memorable game winners that Kobe's hit that I, an NBA fanatic, am forgetting about?

Posted by WKC | December 21, 2007 5:05 PM

LeBron "dragged a team to the finals" in the grossly depleted East last year. It wasn't a particularly impressive feat, and anyone placing a whole lot of emphasis on that is being silly. LeBron is obviously the Future, but who the Present is is still a very close call and subject to change. After all, Peyton Manning's run as best quarterback lasted about 12 minutes before Tom Brady took it back.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 21, 2007 5:05 PM

Sucky thing is, James has no Shaq and no Pippen. Ilgauskas isn't getting better and neither is anybody else on the Cavs.

Either James has to take himself beyond Jordan or the Cavs need a lucky trade, because I don't see otherwise how he's going to beat a Western team in a 7-game series alone. Kobe can't do it and neither can Lebron.

Posted by Abe | December 21, 2007 5:06 PM

Borrowing what?

Posted by Sam L | December 21, 2007 5:08 PM

Actually, Kobe's clutch ability has always been exaggerated. He loves taking the clutch shot (which is good), so he has many opportunities to be the hero, but his actual percentages all go down in clutch moments, not up.

I'm a huge Laker fan and Laker games are the only ones I watch. Last night's performance in the clutch was very typical. He did some amazing things like grab that rebound off the missed free throw, but he also missed all his important shots down the stretch.

http://www.82games.com/clutchplayers.htm

Kobe is a great player, but he is also overrated.

Posted by Mark | December 21, 2007 5:13 PM

Part of the debate is clutch-fetishism, even though I think Petey's right about how hitting the last shot requires a specific skill set (one Kobe has more than any other player).

The clutch-fetishizing part comes from the Robert Horry-fellators in the media, mostly. They seem to imply that the guy who goes 2-14 but hits the game-winner had a better game than the guy who goes 12-18, scores 35, has 10 assists, but misses the potential game-winner.

As far as: "Kobe is the best player in the association to take the last shot because he's the best one-on-one player in the association" ... well, the numbers don't seem to back that up. But I'll buy it. On the other hand, I'd still rather have the ball in Lebron's hands. Yes, Donyell Marshall missed that open 3 last year against the Pistons, but that's still a great play by Lebron. Lebron is going to get a good shot for somebody. Kobe is going to get a shot, good or bad, for himself.

Posted by too many steves | December 21, 2007 5:14 PM

Not only is Kobe less valuable-- strictly with regard to winning games-- than LeBron, he's probably less valuable than somewhere between a few and several other players in the league.

Enormously talented? Of course. A prolific scorer? Obviously. A good on-the-ball defender? Apparently.

But I'd take Duncan, Garnett, Nash, and Howard over Kobe if I was putting a team together to win this year. Chris Paul, too.

Kobe's a great weapon, and paired with an excellent center he's fantastic to have (if Bynum continues to improve they could make some noise). But without that crucial complement, I'd say he's a less productive player than at least those five guys.

Posted by PJ | December 21, 2007 5:20 PM

And just to note that after last night, I think Anthony Carter is the greatest clutch player in the history of the association.

We're probably going to get waxed tonight in Portland on the back-to-back after Iverson played 57 fucking minutes, but it was a helluva game.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 5:30 PM

Suffice it to say that LeBron is scoring more points on better field goal percentage and better true shooting percentage, plus he has a higher assist ratio and a lower turnover ratio. Plus he's a better rebounder, and he has a higher usage rate (i.e., does more to carry his team).

Now, wait a minute here. You are going on a very small sample size for this season. Last season, Kobe scored more points (by a good margin) and had a higher TS%. He also had a higher usage and lower turnovers. I don't think it is a fair comparison based solely on the small sample size of a quarter of a season. Last year, Kobe was definately better; he's had a down year so far this year, but I think you need to judge him on the whole body of work.

Posted by Al | December 21, 2007 5:47 PM

I think people's memories are fuzzy and they're attributing game-winning shots to Kobe that were actually made by Rob Horry. Kobe really hasn't pulled out that many games for the Lakers, over any stretch of history and he's blown a sh*tload of last-minute 3s. And as someone upthread noted, there's that thing about the other 47 minutes too. As for Kobe's defense, it's slipping. He's an intense competitor with a world of skills, but LBJ is a better player in the only category that matters, singlehandedly adding a significant number of wins to his team. Whoever says it's no big deal that LBJ carried his team to the finals just because Cleveland is in the East is nuts; in any event, LBJ has carried his team more impressively (and at a far younger age) than Kobe ever has.

Posted by Steve V | December 21, 2007 5:53 PM

Matt, I wonder where you get the info abt turnover ratio. Checking this page, e.g.,

http://tinyurl.com/yunntj

it appears that Kobe has a lower TO than LeBron, both this year and in the career.

In any event, I would go for LeBron for two reasons:

1) he is a better leader (last year was amazing: he managed to get the most out of this pretty untalented teammates);

2) Kobe does quite a few bad choices because he wants to show off and prove you that he is better than you: "I'll shot from so far because I can do it and you can't". LeBron is not so childish and so he ends up making better choices, that also attract to him the respect of his teammates.

Posted by tt | December 21, 2007 5:55 PM

"Now, wait a minute here. You are going on a very small sample size for this season."

My initial comment on this thread was almost to say that stats aren't the controlling legal authority here. They illuminate, but they don't decide.

Even if this year's stats showed Kobe with a higher TS% and higher usage rate than LBJ, it wouldn't change the equation.

LeBron consistently deforms the court in a much deeper way than Kobe. Kobe's an ultra-elite scorer who'll make some great non-scoring plays. LeBron is a fucking force of nature who has his own personal gravitational field surrounding him on the floor.

At the end of the day, it's easy cast a title around LeBron and it's not easy to cast a title around Kobe.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 6:04 PM

Are you high?

Kobe is playing worse, I'll admit that, but he is a better player by miles. He is in a slump. He will get out of that slump. Lebron is playing amazing right now, but he doesn't even rise to Good Day Kobe's fucking knee.

Posted by bend | December 21, 2007 6:54 PM

Ok, so you know how in baseball, an at-bat in the 9th inning is tangibly the same as it is in the 1st. That isn't so much true in basketball, for a variety of reasons. These reasons, incidentally, relate to why basketball is far harder to do quantitative analysis on.

LBJ is doing well to make this a conversation, but it's still Kobe.

Posted by Pooh | December 21, 2007 7:15 PM

I don't know what a "fucking force of nature" is, nor what having ones own gravitational field does. But, having disposed of the statistical evidence that Matthew threw out there, I'll also take on the non-statistical evidence, which I guess is solely due to the Cav's run last year. And, frankly, LBJ bringing the Cavs past the depleted Wiz, the pathetic Nets, and the overrated Pistons, just to get completely blown out by the Spurs, isn't all that impressive. Certainly not as impressive as Kobe's three rings, even if Kobe had Shaq on the team.

It's going to take more than a quarter season mini-slump for me not to think that Kobe's the best.

Posted by Al | December 21, 2007 7:31 PM

Pooh-

I don't disagree with you on the basketball side of things (since I don't like the NBA as a product) but a 9th inning at bat is far different from one in the 1st.

The fielders play differently - maybe more aggressive or conservative depending on who is winning, etc.

Likewise pitchers pitch differently and your goal as a hitter is different.

Closers are almost always fastball hurlers who prey on hitters thinking they will hit the game winning home run. Instead its a pop up or warning track fly out.

Anyhow, a side comment in the tradition of blogging about nothing.

Posted by Tom | December 21, 2007 7:32 PM

"I don't know what a "fucking force of nature" is, nor what having ones own gravitational field does"

It allows you to have satellites.

It's the same thing that is going to make average players like Boobie Gibson and Sideshow Bob a lot of money.

Things orbit LeBron on the floor in a way they don't with Kobe.

There's a reason nobody ever wins a title with a '2' guard as their best player, unless that '2' guard has the initials MJ. Kobe just can't make as much of a difference on the floor as LeBron.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 7:43 PM

LBJ's ability to Gibson and Varejao money is nice, but Varejao didn't actually get very much money, and Gibson ain't up yet. And Kobe got Luke Walton $30 million. Luke Walton!

Nice try.

Posted by Al | December 21, 2007 7:53 PM

"Nice try."

I'm not trying. There's no election coming up for the office. And if I were campaigning, I'd be for Iverson.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 8:00 PM

Boy, if I had to decide who to take the last shot, I'd pick the guy with the better shooting percentage. If that guy also happens to be the guy who when triple teamed chooses to pass to the open teammate instead of forcing up an airball, I'm okay with that too. But I guess field goal percentage and, um, overall skill are two things that the professional commentators at ESPN haven't heard of yet.

Posted by Meph | December 22, 2007 12:10 AM

Just some thoughts...love both their games, both of their respective teammates will get open shots because of the focus on them...whose teammates makes more of those shots gets credited for more assists...if the offense runs through a player and he handles the ball more he should have more assists. Clevelands O is Lebron, Lakers is the triangle, hence Lebron should get more assists. Likewise, Lebron is a 3, he should get more rebounds. Players were scared of Jordan guarding them, same with Kobe...no one says they are afraid of Lebron checking them. Kobe guards 1's, 2's, and 3's, i.e.,Kobe guarded Iverson in the 4th in their win against Denver. Lebron does not/can not...he's 6'9, 260, it's physically not doable...(tho' if he does later on...that would be incredible) nor does he guard other 4's well when he rarely does. Team wise, the playoff exp. on the Cavs exceeds that of the very green Lakers greatly. Odom, Brown, Williams, Mihms, Vujacic, Bynum, Farmar, Turiaf, etc. compared with Z, Hughes, Snow alone makes the case. Playoff exp. matters greatly. See '06 Suns series. Comparisons with 4's and 5's are unfair to the 4's and 5's in that their skill sets make them successful and vulnerable. Duncan, Shaq, Howard are big men...for them to be successful they have to have good or great guard play. Duncan has never played with a team lacking good experienced guards so has never had to shoulder the total load for an entire season and playoff series and be sucessful. Shaq has never played without another great scorer so his deficiencies were known but not fully exploitable. Howard needs good guard play and outside shooting to avoid collapsing D since he has no ball handling skills to speak of. Even Nowitzki has limitations, not being especially strong inside. These players would not only not perform well, their teams would not be successful either. The skill level of Kobe's teammates makes it necessary that he be able not only to take contested shots but make them also or his team has no chance of sucess. He does not get and will not get open, uncontested shots as long as his team has no other legitimate scoring threat to make the defense play 'honestly'. That goes for the defensive end also...he must play the lead and his best individual defense and team, off the ball, defense everytime on the defensive end to make up for the varying skill levels of his teammates. I have seen what Kobe and Jordan can do for their respective teams and to the opposing team with help from experienced players, i.e. championships, and without, so I would need to see Lebron in the same situation to make a clearer comparison. Until then. Kobe.

Posted by andrelee | December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

I never could figure out why people latch onto and ferociously defend Kobe. He has always beed really unlikeable as a public persona (maybe he's great in person): spoiled, petulant, selfish, manipulative, egomaniacle, phony... and then there was that alledged rape. He's always been an asshole, on and off the court.

So it must be the basketball skills, the plays he makes. He has the physical ability to be the best player in BBall, but he's been playing10-12 years now, and it only in the past two or three years that people talk about how he's learning ot be a team player and make the people around him better so that his team can win. Maybe he's finally leanred it but I don't think so. basketball is more than the sum of a bunch of highlights. So to have a favorite player who is not only an asshole, but who has never been able to tamp down his ego enough to lead a team to success... that just doesn't make sense.

But CW, what about the rings? He's got three rings.

Well, he got three rings in the company of one of the 3 or 4 greatest centers to ever play the game and one of the 2 or three greatest coaches. Him and shaq struggled for years, even missing the playoffs or almost missing the playoffs one year. And he was never the leader or most influential player on those championship teams. Shaq was. And his success these past few years as the man? I think the 7th game of the phoenix series of two years ago is pretty emblamtic.

Posted by cw | December 22, 2007 1:05 AM

whose better -> who's better

Posted by moron | December 22, 2007 1:58 AM

What about Kevin Durant?

There is no controversy and it is Kobe by a mile.

Hell, the real argument is Kobe vs. Duncan.

LeBron has had one playoff run in the shittiest conference (for a season) I can remember.

What a post and thread.

Posted by Armando | December 22, 2007 9:53 AM

I threw in Durant as a joke because of all the hyperbole about him last year.

Horford has been the better rookie by far.

Posted by Armando | December 22, 2007 9:55 AM

Armando, Armando, Armando...

Posted by cw | December 22, 2007 1:21 PM

Kobe has won three rings. When LeBron wins his next important game, it will be his first.

Posted by Steve Smith | December 23, 2007 12:22 AM