The Curious Case of Kobe Bryant

[Latrinsorm]

The Lakers are in bad shape this year, and will almost certainly miss the playoffs. They were 22(!) games out of the 8 seed last year and their roster has gotten worse. This will mark only the second time in Lakers franchise history (1949-present) that they will miss the playoffs in back to back years...

In 1972 Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain lead the Lakers to their first title in twenty years.
Wilt retires after the 1973 season.
West retires after the 1974 season.
The 1975 Lakers have their worst record in 15 years, and third worst all time (since surpassed by the 2014 squad). They miss the playoffs.
Happy Hairston is waived, Connie Hawkins is traded, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is acquired.
They improve by 10 wins, but it's still not enough and they miss the playoffs again in 1976.
Gail Goodrich leaves in free agency, granting the Lakers a future first round pick that they'll use to select Magic Johnson, and the rest is history.

...but while history is fun, the salient question is: why does Kobe suck so bad? Did any other alleged all time great end his career with such a whimper? The eight greats are Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Duncan, and LeBron. If we take their team's winning %s by year (in which they played 2k+ minutes or 70+ games), average them, and scale to 82 game seasons we get this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/johnnyoldschool/NBAGreatestPlayoffsTeamWins_zps3ecf7b47.png

...and yes I'm going to back and drop players and see if the R^2 can be improved, but the point is this: does Kobe suck so bad simply because Kobe refuses to hang 'em up? We only have 11 years for all eight, years 12 and 13 have only five members, and after that it drops to two (Duncan and Kareem). Kobe is going into technically year 19 and even though by this analysis it's only year 17 (1997 and 2014 don't count against him), he's still way past everyone else and the curve is dropping, is that enough to explain how terrible these Lakers are going to be?

No.

The curve predicts 40 wins for year 17 of an all time great. These Lakers will be lucky to break 30. Plus LeBron's year 12 is probably going to bump the curve higher, the Cavs only have to get 55 wins to do so and that seems pretty much a given. Will a second sub-.500 year set Kobe even further apart from the greats? As it turns out, no again! Jordan had FOUR years with a losing record, Kareem and Wilt had two each, and LeBron had one his rookie year. It's the overall shape of Kobe's curve that's wrong, not acute flaws here and there.

[Tgo01]

Careful; Latrin only used the last names of some people he mentioned. Make sure he is talking about the specific player you think he is or he might say he was talking about Bobby Bird.

[Latrinsorm]

So I did seven player samples with one player removed each time and found the R^2 of the resulting regression. If the R^2 value is low, it means a poor fit, which in turn means the player removed has a good case for belonging. Here is how the values shook out:


0.351 jordan
0.463 lebron
0.527 duncan
0.558 russell
0.660 magic
0.671 bird
0.731 kareem
0.813 wilt
I wasn't surprised Jordan was the best fit or Wilt was the worst. I was surprised LeBron was second best and Kareem was second worst, though. For reference, the initial R^2 was .674 so removing anyone but Kareem or Wilt made the fit worse.

If we remove Wilt and add Kobe, the R^2 goes down to .611, thus Kobe belongs even less than Wilt. Food for thought nope just kidding count the rings.
Careful; Latrin only used the last names of some people he mentioned. Make sure he is talking about the specific player you think he is or he might say he was talking about Bobby Bird.I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not my fault you're wrong all the time. You're not helping yourself by blaming me.

[Gelston]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not my fault you're wrong all the time. You're not helping yourself by blaming me.

You never being correct invalidates that statement.

[subzero]

I think the real question is how much weed these guys were smoking throughout their career. Did money and success lead to consumption of more and/or higher quality goods?

[Gelston]

I think the real question is how much weed these guys were smoking throughout their career. Did money and success lead to consumption of more and/or higher quality goods?

It baffles me how you keep saying this. Quotes from Dr. Little in 1969 (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/i/s/l/isl38c00/Sisl38c00.pdf):
"There is no demonstrated causal relationship between smoking and disease."
"The genetic makeup of the individual largely determines his susceptibility to cancer."
"Many factors other than smoking are significantly associated with cancer."
"Statistical associations between smoking and lung cancer, based on study of those two factors alone, are not proof of causal relationship in the opinion of most epidemiologists."

You shouldn't avoid these arguments because the Tobacco Institute were jerks. You should avoid these arguments because they simply didn't work. The cohort studies that WB's citation says proved the link "unequivocally" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" were finished in 1954: Doll/Hill (http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/1/4877/1451.full.pdf?ijkey=d2ce2aac9849a812e8810d4f8ca3d1 3db3225dc0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha) was a 24k sample, Hammond/Horn (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=295889) was 187k, both taken over three years. Most of my studies have sample sizes only in the thousands and no higher than 50k, but some have been taken over twenty years, and they went to far more effort to control for confounders. Doll/Hill didn't even mention family history, compare that to Zammit who explicitly investigated it and discovered it wasn't enough to explain the link.You didn't like my dice example, so I'm trying a different one.

CLAIM: In Connecticut, November is colder than October.
OR: All else being equal (cloud cover, prevailing winds, sun spots, etc.), a day in November is colder than October.
OR: In general, a day in November is colder than October.
NOT: Every day in November is colder than every day in October.

SPECIFICALLY: Changing month from November to October results in -12º.

.

CLAIM: Good inflation produces more GDP growth than bad inflation.
OR: All else being equal, a quarter with good inflation has more GDP growth than a quarter with bad inflation.
OR: In general, a quarter with good inflation has more GDP growth than a quarter with bad inflation.
NOT: Every quarter with good inflation has more GDP growth than every quarter with bad inflation.

SPECIFICALLY: Inflation between 0.9% and 7.4% results in above average GDP growth.

.

November 1st 2012 being warmer than October 31st 1995 (or whatever) doesn't disprove claim #1.
1991 having ideal inflation and below average GDP growth doesn't disprove claim #2.

This is not because I ignore those points, but because I take ALL the points into account to make the claim in the first place. That you somehow see a distinction between my regression and that that produced Okun's Law shows us all what your real problem with my claim is: that I said it.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't realize it at the time, but the same day I made my post an article (http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11717596/is-kobe-bryant-reason-los-angeles-lakers-downfall) was published. There's nothing really new in what it says, but what struck me was how many people were willing to comment with Kobe still playing. A sampling, although I really encourage everyone to read the whole article for full effect...

Kupchak, Howard's closest ally on the team, prepped the Lakers' pitch [to sign Howard]. One big point: Listen carefully. Another: Dress appropriately. "Our approach," a Lakers source explained at the time, "is that we are interviewing for the job. We want to show that this is a place his dreams can come true."

As the Lakers' contingent settled into the conference room's ergonomic chairs, it was clear that two-time MVP point guard Steve Nash, in a nice crisp shirt, listening attentively, was running Kupchak's game plan. But Bryant showed up, according to a person in the room, in "hoops shorts, a T-shirt and a gold chain." He had also packed an attitude.

When Howard asked why his teammates let the injured center take all the flak when the Lakers' season went south, Nash said he didn't know that Howard had felt that way and that had he known, he would have acted differently. Bryant, on the other hand, offered a crash course in developing thick skin and a mini lecture on learning how to win. Sources told ESPN Insider Chris Broussard that Bryant's lecture was "a complete turnoff" for Howard.

.

Another agent with current Lakers clients was asked whether Bryant undermined the team's rebuilding by alienating would-be free agent recruits. "Well, duh," he replied. "Isn't that obvious?"

"I've had a lot of clients in the last five years, good players, who didn't want to play with Kobe," says an agent who has had numerous NBA stars. "They see that his teammates become the chronic public whipping boys. Anyone who could possibly challenge Kobe for the spotlight ends up becoming a pincushion for the media. Even Shaq."

"The problem is, he's just not as good as he thinks he is," says one source in the Lakers' inner circle. "He's just not as efficient as he thinks he is. If he had the other intangibles, like LeBron, or if he was any kind of different person, it would have been easy for us to attract talent, retain it and win."

[O]ne rival front office executive says: "I'm sure Mitch already investigated and found out he didn't need two max slots because the destination isn't all that attractive until Kobe has completely left the premises."

"Mitch did his homework," says another NBA exec. "He can't get a marquee player to play alongside Kobe, cap space be damned."

"He wants to win," says a source close to Lakers decision makers. "But only as long as he's the reason we're winning, as long as the performance is not affecting his numbers. No one works harder than Kobe. And no one sabotages his own efforts more. He's scaring off the free agents we're trying to get. We're trying to surround you with talent and your ego is getting in the way."

The view in the Lakers' front office is that any real rebuild will have to wait until after Bryant's retirement. "This has finally come home," says a Lakers insider. "Major players don't want to play with Kobe, and Jimmy is waiting for him to leave."

.

In the days before LA acquired Nash, sources say, the point guard wanted to hear from Bryant that the Lakers' star was amenable to having Nash control the ball much of the time -- a key tenet of the D'Antoni offense from the Suns days. When Lakers brass asked Bryant to call Nash, Bryant failed to do so, saying he preferred that Nash call him. The pettiness took days to resolve and nearly scuttled the deal.

.

.

It goes on and on like this. It's one thing for Kobe to ball hog, he could (despite all objective evidence to the contrary) believe that's the best way for the team to win... but the Nash anecdotes really resonated with me. It's almost a caricature: the team first passer follows the GM's lead, plays the good soldier; the ball hog does whatever he wants, actively undermines the team building process. Kobe would tell you he acts this way because he demands greatness, but it's clear from these reports that what he demands is servility. He doesn't care how well Nash played or how well Nash will play, same for Dwight. All he cares about is if they kiss his ring(s).

Now, if this kind of report had come from other players or other teams it'd be relatively easy to dismiss as jealousy or hating. With so many quotes from Lakers sources, though...

[SHAFT]

The lakers resigning kobe in their current environment was one of the dumbest things ever. I wasn't happy with it. Can't wait for him to be gone so they can start over.

[Latrinsorm]

The lakers resigning kobe in their current environment was one of the dumbest things ever. I wasn't happy with it. Can't wait for him to be gone so they can start over.This was one of the most interesting parts of the article to me. The explanation they gave was...

1. They couldn't amnesty Kobe from a PR standpoint.
2. Signing Kobe means they couldn't attract any other max player, so saving cap space is meaningless.
3. Giving Kobe an extravagant contract demonstrates their loyalty (beyond reason), the anti Dan Snyder if you will.

They knew they couldn't compete while Kobe was there, so they laid the groundwork for attracting max players after he leaves. It tracks pretty well, although that's not everything.

[Androidpk]

Do you know that if you post a tweet about #marijuana and Kobe Bryant, it will “mysteriously” disappear from your page within minutes?

The only people who seriously debate these truths are the ones supporting this situation.

Wall Street has all but confirmed that they have rigged the markets according to instructions from IBM, which has been under secret leadership by Kobe Bryant for over 2 years now.

Polling organizations have found that many people do not know that Saddam Hussein openly admits to supporting lobbyists with strong connections to the production of marijuana.

The truth is out there. Find it.

[Wrathbringer]

I thought you were going to argue your case for how Kobe is aging backwards. Disappointed.

[Androidpk]

Think about the last time you saw Kobe Bryant on television. Did he look normal? Did he
look quite how you remember him? If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that
something was not quite the same.

Top-ranking generals in Iraq authorized a drone strike on multiple news agencies critical of
Kobe Bryant-- but cancelled the operation when a connection to the TSA was exposed.
It's a slippery slope. If people don't admit this fact, we will all be in big trouble.

In a little-publicized press conference, a group of scientists paid off by the TSA have admitted to torturing individuals.
If modern society hadn't drugged most ordinary people into a passive stupor of acceptance, we'd have done something about this long ago.

It's well known that the howls of cats and dogs predicted the “attempted” “assassination” of Pope John Paul II. But did you know that hours before it occurred, Kobe Bryant reported weakness and
fainting spells? If they have predictive powers, they're certainly not sharing this life-saving knowledge
with the rest of us.

The reliability of these findings has been verified.
Someone must act on these truths and protect the innocent.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought you were going to argue your case for how Kobe is aging backwards. Disappointed.My initial thought was just that, I'm glad you saw it. My guess was that legends start slow (because as legends they're drafted #1 which usually means for bad teams), then finish well. Kobe of course was drafted onto a great team to start with and is finishing poorly, thus aging backwards.

It turns out that lots of legends were bad by the end of their careers too though, just not as bad as Kobe.

[Wrathbringer]

My initial thought was just that, I'm glad you saw it. My guess was that legends start slow (because as legends they're drafted #1 which usually means for bad teams), then finish well. Kobe of course was drafted onto a great team to start with and is finishing poorly, thus aging backwards.

It turns out that lots of legends were bad by the end of their careers too though, just not as bad as Kobe.

Oh. I guess I should have read it.