However…I *don’t* think that statistics are ideal for comparing superstars. They’re good for comparing run-of-the-mill players, or even stars–the kind that each team has one or two of. Those players do not get junk defenses thrown at them, and they are, by and large, interchangeable (with perhaps change in level of performance, but not vast change in *kind*).

But the very top players, the ones that there are only four or five of in the league at any time, they play such different roles for their teams, and face such varied defenses and other tactics that statistics, even moneyball kinds of statistics, are simply on too uneven a platform to use reliably. I’m not sure what the right way to compare them is, but I’m pretty sure that straightforward statistical comparison–even the win-share kind of statistics–isn’t it.

Chris Paul is outrebounding Kobe this year when adjusted for pace, is significantly more efficient from the field in terms of ts%, has a steal rate roughly 1.5 times higher, and an assist rate more than double the Mamba’s.

It wasn’t close last year, it isn’t close this year. Chris Paul is much much better than Kobe.

The same is true of Dwight Howard. Yeah, he isn’t the entertainer Kobe is on the court, And he won’t ever have a 60 point game. But in terms of standard deviations from the mean he is probably the best athlete in the world (i.e. in terms of how unusually athletic he is at his height.) The Magic have the third best defense in the league this year and he is leading the league in blocks. Not that blocks matter much, but D-Ho has committed to defense this year and it is showing up big time in the numbers.

Take away Shaq, take away the LA spotlight, and Kobe is revealed as just another high quality NBA swingman with a knack for the spectacular. If he and Paul Pierce had had their roles reversed at the start of their careers, things would a lot different right now. Because in their careers they have posted roughly identical statistics in their career.

Yours,
Bitter Knicks Fan