Part 2: Statistical Portrayals of Kobe Bean Bryant

In part 1 of the series I examined the overall media perception of Kobe Bryant and the prejudice media writers tend to show when commenting on such a polarizing figure.

I also made the point that often times the most accurate portrayals of someone come from primary sources, which in Kobe Bryant’s case would be current and former NBA players, coaches, and general managers, especially those who have competed with or against him. When the consensus of these contemporaries is that Kobe Bryant is the best we have today, that lends credence to that very fact, despite what secondary sources (i.e. white collar journalism majors with no NBA pedigree) might say. 

Today, I will look at one area of sports media reporting that has literally taken on a life of its own—the statistician —and pinpoint its shortcomings and blow up that proverbial bubble.

Simply put, sports statisticians like John Hollinger of ESPN try to use numbers and statistics to answer the question, “Which player or team is better?” At the very best, we must admit that this is a practice of estimation.

Let's say LeBron James scores 25 points on 50 percent shooting, grabs six boards, dishes out five assists, and adds in a steal and a block to go along with two turnovers. Does that mean he had a better night than, say, Kobe Bryant, who had only 23 points on 45 percent shooting, five boards, four assists, no steals, one block, and three turnovers?

According to John Hollinger, the answer is a resounding yes, even if we factor in pace of game, true shooting percentage, and other statistical measures. Average that over a season and Hollinger would say that James is a better player.

However, there are many variables unaccounted for—too many to list. In fact, if statisticians were able to account for every single variable, then the field wouldn’t even exist. I would know exactly how well the stock market will do tomorrow and become a billionaire. We would have no more market crashes and supermarkets would never have to throw away unsold groceries.

Statisticians always acknowledge the shortcomings of their practice. This is why when Hollinger uses numbers only to come up with MVP or best player claims, he has brazenly stepped out of his boundaries.

The simple fact is, how good a player is doesn’t depend merely on how many points he scores or how many assists he accumulates. What if, in the above example, LeBron played against a tired, injured team that single-covered him? What if Kobe Bryant faced double teams all night and had many “hockey” assists (passes that lead to assists)? What if LeBron failed to step between a teammate and a ref and allowed that teammate to get a technical?

What if Kobe quarterbacked the entire team on defense and led a fourth quarter surge that doesn’t get recorded on the stat sheet? What if LeBron James accumulated all his points in the first quarter when the opposing team wanted him to score, but not his teammates? What if Kobe only missed two open men, but LeBron missed three?

What if Kobe played 80 percent of his fast breaks correctly, passing to the right man on the break with the highest chance of scoring a basket, while LeBron only played 70% of his fast breaks correctly, and sometimes passed for an open 15 footer instead of a layup?

Is there a statistic that measures how many defensive assignments a player missed? Is there a statistic that measures how positively a player affects his team’s focus? Leadership? Is there a statistic that measures how well a player allows his teammates to play to their strengths, as in a player that doesn’t allow Larry Hughes to drive to the hoop because he cannot shoot versus a player who leads on both ends of the court and therefore allows Derek Fisher to save his energy for crunch-time? None of these very important factors show up on the stat sheet.

Is there a statistic that measures how well a player performs his role? For example, what if LeBron James were asked by his coach to get 45, eight, and eight to demoralize his opponents and to dominate the ball, while Kobe was asked to only get 20 points and set up the triangle and score clutch buckets? LeBron would have failed his coach and gameplan, despite getting better numbers.

Finally, is there a statistic for “bailout” baskets—that is, timely buckets scored when the offense breaks down? For unexpected shots? For demoralizing, crowd-silencing plays?

These intangible factors do not show up on the stat sheet, yet the stat sheet is what John Hollinger and his like depend on for their conclusions.

I am not using LeBron’s example as a knock against his game, only as a clear and pertinent demonstration. Also, the "what if" examples are not reflective of LeBron's or Kobe's actual games; I am merely pointing out possible ways that statistics fail to paint a complete, accurate picture.

In the end, the measure of a player’s greatness is vastly too complicated for numbers to measure. Numbers can give us a hint, but in the end the overall picture can only be gleaned by the general consensus of the league, which, if you read part 1 of the series yesterday, you would know very well.

In no case are you valid in using numbers to refute the general consensus of the league, which is something that the likes of John Hollinger sometimes try to do.