(interbasket) - Don't get lost in the hype, Kobe Bryant may be the youngest player to
reach 20,000 points in the NBA, but it certainly doesn't mean he was the
fastest nor most efficient. 14 players reached 20,000 points before Kobe.
All these news outlets talking up this youngest-to-20,000-record has left me a little perplexed. I know it’s a nice-sounding record, but since I am a
stats-kinda-guy, I find that it's inherently flawed to judge these type of records based on age. Perhaps if all NBA players
entered the league at 18 years old, then the accomplishment would have some weight, but that’s just not the case - making all this mostly just hype.
Viewing this as an apples-to-apples comparison, Kobe’s feat isn’t
nearly as amazing-sounding. Using the amount of games-played as our
simple yet equal measure- Wilt, Jordan, Big-O, Kareem and ten other players reached 20,000 points faster than Kobe Bryant. On this list, Kobe falls to 15th. Here's the top-ten list of players that reached 20,000 points in order of the least amount of games played:
Wilt Chamberlain (499games) during the 65-66 season (7th NBA season)
Michael Jordan (620) January 08, 1993 vs Milwukee Bucks (9th)
Oscar Robertson (671) during the 1968-69 season (9th)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (684) during the 1976-77 season (9th)
Elgin Baylor (711) during the 1968-69 season (11th)
Allen Iverson (713) January 23, 2007 vs. Denver Nuggets (11th)
Jerry West (~720) during the 1970-71 season (11th)
Shaquille O’Neal (727) March 20, 2003 vs. Sacramento Kings (11th)
George Gervin (~745) during the 1985-86 season (10th)
Researching the internet and referring to basketball-reference.com I was able to determine the top-15 list (some I had to go with approximate games played) as well as including other players in the 20,000 point-club. To see where Kobe stands and where players like Dominique Wilkins, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett and Charles Barkley rank on this list check out the entire list and article if you dig.
Good research and I give you props for a good article. You spent time to do this and you've done a good job.
However, all the research in the world does not make up for the obvious differences of basketball in the past and basketball of today.
Wilt played in a era where there was no such thing as defense in basketball. All there was was "Pass it to the big guy and let him shoot." Also, some of the players did not play in a time of Super star land like we have now. The level of competition and intensity has no doubt gotten better than the past.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing on the LEGENDS. I'm just saying that you should give Kobe some credit too. All said and done, he is a remarkable player. A guy with major flaws no doubt but then again, who doesn't have flaws?
this a a great post but you also got to look at minutes played alot of these players were immediate starters and went to bad teams and had to chuck the ball up because they were the best on there teams kobe didnt start right away and averaged far less minutes the most of these guys in his first two years so if you want to say who is fastest maybe do it by minutes played not by games played.
Hey PartofLA,
Thanks for the props, and I definitely agree that there are differences in eras, but when it comes down to how the differences shine on modern players, there are negative ways of looking at them also.
What Kobe has done is definitely a great accomplishment. I just don't want people to equate youngest with fastest. With that said, I also want to say that modern players benefited, at least for a five years or so, the ability to jump straight from high-school as KG did, as Kobe had, as LeBron did, as McGrady. This gave these players an advantage over the likes of Wilt, Kareem, Ewing, Shaq, and every other player that was a high-school phenom in a time when 2-years in college was seen as a necessity.
Would Kobe have been the youngest had Wilt been abl e to jump to the NBA straight from high school? And how much lower would Kobe be down on the list if Rick Barry, Dr.J, Moses, and Dan Issel didn't spend their first few years in the ABA?
I felt I had to write the article to say "Hey, with all the varying factors that come with eras, both good and bad, what is the one solid way of determining the quickest to 20,000 points? Certainly it's games played.
No doubt one of the best ways is to see games played. However, Vasquez has found a flaw that neither I nor (I think) you have seen. Truly, Minutes played should be a lot more accurate than games played. If you look at Kobe's early career, he spent alot of time on the bench, taking second to a few more veteran guards. I think the next move should check minutes. (Of course this would take a very, very long time.)
Correct, the truest measure of efficiency would be dividing the 20,000 points/(average minutes per season*games played per season), but I already did my work on xmas eve ;)
However, again, this is one of the negatives about playing in an era of HS-to-NBA players. Many of the HS players came into the league unready to contribute on a regular basis (such as McGrady, Kobe) and a lot have fell off the radar.
It would be a negative when speaking of quickest-to-20000, but when Kobe, McGrady, KG start filling in the top-10 in all-time NBA scoring, will we be talking about their early starts as negatives? No, because even though their early starts they weren't playing starter-minutes or putting up all-star numbers, those extra 1000-3000 points they accumulated in that time will have push them above some legendary guys that didn't get the benefit of starting nearly as early.
Wow, i totally forgot about that - makes a difference for the modern players (Jordan, Kobe etc.), but I don't think it would have made too much of a improvement to Wilts or Kareems numbers :) I am thinking Jerry West and Elgin Baylor's point totals suffered the most.
Stuart
Last edited by interbasket on December 25th at 11:08 AM.
you bring up the new era players coming early dont forget moses malone and daryl dawkins they came out in the time of your legends you just need to recongnize the accomlishment rather than try to undermine it. No matter when they come on they all work just as hard to get where they are and dont need somebody to tell them its just hype because it is technically not the fastest or whatever
Well, I am both recognizing it and undermining it. I see it for what it is, a nice-sounding accomplishment but with no real context or value. The point of my post is two-fold, to emphasize youngest doesn't mean fastest and to measure "quickest" to 20,000 using a more statistical approach that puts everyone on a more equal starting-point.
"Don't get caught up in the hype"? What would you prefer? They simply didn't report it at all? I saw one article on Fox. Saw it mentioned once on each Los Angeles TV sports at 11:00. Nobody went #### over it, there were no parades, no trophies, no ceremonies.
You Kobe haters amaze me. If his name is even in the box score you rush to slam out blogs hating on him. Grow up.
Read the article and read my previous post. Don't get caught up in the hype means don't misconstrue what the accomplishment means - youngest does not equal fastest.
Also, don't overvalue a record like this, as it doesn't mean much.
Then go to Google news, search Kobe 20000. Then go to every other sports-related site and see if it isn't on the front page of every NBA section. Then turn on the Laker's game today and see if it isn't mentioned 2-3 times like he just broke the NBA all-time scoring record - which might I add, is a real record that can be quantified and valued.
The Lakers game hasn't even come on yet and I have heard the "Kobe 20,000 points" mentioned/covered three times already. It's only halftime of the Cleveland-Miami.
Kobe owns 37 laker records. None of these mean a thing to you do they? But they would if it was someone other than Kobe right? They shouldnt either way but it would right? be honest.
Individual records mean absolutely nothing to me. They are hyping the thing on TV because of the Laker game coming on. That's what they do. but for you to claim that people in general are going wild over this is a joke. Nobody is. I'm the world's biggest Kobe fan but I couldnt care less about this. It means nothing since Kobe started at 17 and he's the primary shooter it's not suprising. Nor will it be suprising to me when Lebron becomes the youngest since Lebron has been Cleveland's primary shooter since day one and Kobe wasn't the Lakers. (shrug) it's a non issue and only people like you and those seeking ratings make it an issue.
Last edited by OutridersandOutlaws on December 25th at 1:45 PM.
Listen, there is nothing you can argue about in my post, it's straight-up data from NBA.com and basketball-reference.com, which neither (that I am aware of), are kobe-hating sites. Fact of the matter is Kobe may be the youngest to 20,000 points, but he's not the fastest to 20,000 points.
This blog is good reference but despite the disclaimer, its hard to keep in context. The rules, and lane size have changed, with all the other issues mentioned they affect the results.
If Kobe got to 20K faster it would be because he is selfish and a ball hog. That doesnt apply to the others for some reason. Such is the critique of Laker4life KB24. No doubt the Gold medal hell help win for our country will be tarnished as well.
The criticism doesnt matter, he is the best (so say his peers). First or fastest, this little record is not going to hurt his 1st time vote to the HOF.
As you see in most responses, no need to be perplexed just enjoy while hes playing. (Other) Haters need to get cable so they see for themselves. Merry Xmas = Suns going down.
Go Lakers!
Last edited by ElSporto on December 25th at 10:16 PM.
There you go!
Pulled out the fluff wasted in trying to keep you from defending the blog. This should work, maybe I misread what I thought was defensive posturing. I hope you can understand it now.
Dude, all I needed to say has already been said. There's nothing to defend- hater or lover, Kobe was the youngest, but not the fastest to 20,000 points. In fact, he wasn't even close to the fastest.
Ok. I understand THAT tension. Its the same in the folks that come running because someone always has an issue no matter what Kobe does. You got the normal response because it reads just a little as devaluing his accomplishment. Like I said before, I hoped to not pile on you for saying that the speed may not be as important as the milestone because of the change in BBall.
Last edited by ElSporto on December 25th at 10:39 PM.
I don't know why some of you are getting so wound up about this. All he said was Kobe is the youngest but not the fastest to 20,000 pts. This is true so why take issue with it? It's true. You can spin it any way you want and it would still be a fair statement.
How many pts. would Kobe have scored in his 81 pt. game without the 3pt. shot? Give me a break. This is the NBA and the stats are objective. Don't try to subjectively justify your points of view just look at the #'s. Don't tell me Wilt played against subpar athletes! Hello, Bill Russell got torched a couple of times by Wilt. Saying that Bob Petit was a man among boys, please. You can say the same thing about Jordan and he played in the games greatest era against the best players in general.
As for Dusty's statements just disregard. The usually level headed Dusty turns into a foul mouthed ranting looney tune when it comes to Kobe. Be glad you didn't make the direct comparison to Jordan or Lebron or heaven forbid Gilbert Arenas. Dusty would have been dropping F-bombs all over this thread.
For the record I like talking smack with Dusty. Especially when he tries to bash T.O. when he is having a career year but even I can't stand the lengths to which he goes in defense of Kobe even when you didn't insult the guy. If your post mentions Kobe and doesn't include the term "best ever" or "G.O.A.T." then Dusty will take issue.
It just seems that the post comes off as Kobe-bashing. Sure he may not have been the fastest, but let me point out when Kobe entered the league he was second fiddle to Eddie Jones and not to mention for the majority of his career he had to be robin to batman (Shaq) and to still achieve this feat is great. I can empathize with the Kobe-lovers, it seems no matter what he does there are haters who have something to point out (not saying that you are a hater) I just wonder what's going to happen when Lebron becomes the youngest ever to 20,000 will there be a blog similar to this one, my guess is that there will be some ESPN special and commentators drooling over themselves about how great KING JAMES is. So while Kobe may not have been the fastest in terms of stats, but he is the youngest at least for now, so just let him have that. Nice post
Well...all the "ERA" differences aside.......
that is on fine list of ballers.....
I think the defining attribute of any player is RINGS and there are a lot of them on that list , but there is at least one player who has NONE.
Scoring heaps of points means practically nothing if it doesn't translate into success.....
Oscar Robertson (maybe West)is probably the one guy that you can make an argument for about being a victim of the rules. Wilt and Petit played in the paint so it was no big deal and Iceman really didn't have a great jumper but if the Big O had a 3 pt rule he would have a lot more points and scoring records. Oh hum, I really don't care he was kind of an arrogant self absorbed mix of Kobe and Arenas but I'm just saying. If you are going to pick one guy on this list and say he was robbed it would have to be the Big O not Kobe.
Interesting blog. I think the premise of your blog, would be to point out how the media just throws stats around to glorify certain players. If this is the case; I somewhat agree. After the Heat's championship, ESPN went on and on about Wade's FG% in that series(I think around 72%). What they failed to mention was he shot around 15-20 FTs per game in the entire series. Therefore almost every shot he missed wasn't counted because a BS foul was called. Needless to say I was not as impressed with his performance.
In regards to Kobe and his 20,000 pts.; I don't think this applies. This may have been mentioned in another post, but you overlooked the fact that all the players you mentioned were the bonafide go to players on their teams. None of them had to play with an over-rated center named Shaq; ( who is also on your list ) who made a career out of whining for the ball. Think about how fast he would have gotten there, if this wasn't the case.
For all those who make the argument that Kobe was not the go to guy early in his career fine. Fair enough. So lets do this. Going back to the 2000-2001 season where Kobe averaged 28.5 ppg to the 2005-2006 season.
If a player wants the benefit of coming into the league early and they're not ready to contribute consistently, then we can't cherry-pick when it benefits our argument because those guys still got to add 1000-2000 points to their career totals.
What happens in 7 years, when we add LeBron James and Dwight Howard to the mix? Both players were able to put up great numbers straight out of high-school.
And what of Kevin Garnett? His career path wasn't as dominant as LeBron's or DHo's, but was still able to contribute.
Just because many HS-to-NBA players like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe and McGrady were riding the NBA bench their first few years in the league, shouldn't be used as an excuse especially when we start talking about total career points -- these players will have an extra 1000-3000 points than a 2-3 year college guy.
Let's look at the alternative, Kobe and T-Mac could have been amongst the college ranks instead of padding their NBA scoring totals. Wilt, Kareem, Bird, and Jordan were dominating the NCAA when they were 19 and 20 years old, not riding an NBA bench.
Fair is fair, and looking at games-played is a much more equal measure than age.
Stuart
Last edited by interbasket on December 26th at 10:37 AM.
Like rooster pointed out earlier, the three-point shot certainly would have made a least a little difference for a small amount of players, most notably guys like Jerry West and possibly Oscar Robertson.
This kind of thing reminds me of when you hear a golfer referred to as the all-time leading money winner or when sets a record for most money earned in one season. Well, duh. The money gets bigger every year, so it's really a meaningless point.
