Kobe Bryant’s 2005-06 season was one for the ages, featuring one of the most electrifying scoring runs in NBA history. He carried a Lakers team with limited talent to the playoffs, showcasing his relentless scoring ability and willpower. This blog series will explore how Kobe’s legendary season, along with other iconic years from NBA legends, stacks up against my all-time favorite player, Steph Curry, and his 2016 season. Each post will dig into every facet of the game to determine who had the better year.
This series is going to be really fun and what better way to start it off than with Kobe vs. Steph? Let’s get to it!
Kobe’s 2006 Overview
Kobe Bryant’s 2005-06 season is often hailed by fans as his best, despite not winning MVP (he finished 4th in the voting). This was largely due to his eye-popping scoring volume at 35.4 points per game. He posted 27 games with 40+ points, including six 50-point games, while playing 80/82 games (missing two due to a suspension for elbowing Mike Miller – classic Kobe).
Kobe single-handedly carried the Lakers to a 45-37 record and a 7th seed in the playoffs, where they lost in a hard-fought seven-game series to the Phoenix Suns. His high-volume scoring wasn’t just for show—it was necessary. The Lakers had a thin roster, with Lamar Odom as the second-leading scorer and Smush Parker as the third. This should provide important context for understanding Kobe’s performance that year. For the full context on Steph’s 2016 season, click here to read my complete breakdown.
Scoring
Scoring is the most important category in this breakdown because both Kobe and Steph did the majority of their damage as elite scorers. While they were well-rounded players, their reputations were built on being stone-cold killers when it came to putting points on the board.
The key difference between the two is in their scoring efficiency. Kobe’s 35.4 points per game was incredible, but it came on 55.9% True Shooting, just 2.3% above league average. Meanwhile, Steph won the scoring title with 30.1 points on an astounding 66.9% True Shooting—12.8% above league average (full data table is below).
When breaking down their shot tendencies, we can’t use play type data since NBA.com doesn’t provide historical data back to 2006. However, we can compare their numbers from different areas on the court.
Scoring by Zone
In terms of getting to the rim, Kobe had more total FG attempts within 3 feet (435) compared to Steph (360). However, Steph actually reached the rim at a higher rate, with 22.5% of his total shot attempts coming in this range, compared to 20% for Kobe. When you factor in Steph’s significantly higher FG percentage from close-range (+9.80%), it’s clear that he was the better overall finisher between the two.
Kobe makes up considerable ground in the mid-range game. He was more efficient from both the 3-10 foot and 10-16 foot ranges, with nearly 25% of his total attempts coming from these areas (shooting 49% and 46%, respectively). In contrast, Steph took only about 13.5% of his attempts from the same spots and was less efficient in those zones, shooting below 45% at both distances. This area was Kobe’s staple and where he did the most damage. Steph preferred to either get to the rim, or save his energy for the long ball…
When it comes to scoring from beyond the arc, there’s not much debate. Steph had the greatest 3-point shooting season in NBA history in 2016, and no competitor—including 2006 Kobe—can match him in this category. That said, Kobe was still a solid long-range shooter for his era, making 180 threes at 34.75%, just about 1% below league average. He even ranked 8th in the league in total threes made, a very solid mark for someone not known as a 3-point specialist. However, when compared to Steph, this becomes almost irrelevant—no one can compete with his historic shooting in 2016.
Table compares scoring metrics between 2006 Kobe & 2016 Steph. A yellow highlighted cell shows an advantage for Kobe, while a blue highlighted cell shows an advantage for Steph. All stats are from BaskteballReference.com & NBA.com.
Clutch Scoring
Obviously, team dynamics played a significant role in the efficiency gap between these two. Kobe’s 2006 Lakers had far less talent, forcing him to shoulder a heavy scoring load, which impacted his efficiency. But, even at his best, Kobe’s TS% never surpassed 58%, while Steph’s career average is 62.6%.
However, Kobe’s ability to consistently hit tough midrange jumpers, whether at the elbows or out of the post, is a key factor in his clutch reputation. He could elevate and get to his spots at will, regardless of who was guarding him, while Steph relied more on movement or screens and wasn’t big enough to shoot over defenders as easily.
The eye test suggests Kobe was more imposing in clutch moments due to his physicality, but the stats favor Steph. In clutch situations—defined as games within 5 points and under 5 minutes to go—Steph averaged more points (4.4 vs. 4.2), shot better (44.2% vs. 36.4%), and led the Warriors to a dominant 27-4 record, compared to the Lakers’ 18-22. Steph also had a better plus-minus in these moments, posting +3.3, while Kobe was -0.4.
Despite this, I’d still give Kobe a slight edge in clutch situations. His ability to shoot over defenders and create shots in any moment gave him a unique advantage, and teams would often load up on him due to his weaker supporting cast. He also drew a lot more foul calls leading to free throws, aka the most efficient shots in the game. The margin is small, but I’d lean toward Kobe as a clutch scorer.
Overall Scoring
All things considered, Steph’s 2016 season as a scorer stands out by a decent bit. Averaging over 30 points with a True Shooting+ of 124 is incredible. While Kobe’s volume in 2006 was among the highest ever, and he did an impressive job carrying the load, Steph’s season was elite in every offensive aspect.
Playmaking
Individual Statistics
Kobe averaged 4.5 assists per game (24.1% assist percentage) while turning the ball over 3.1 times, producing an offensive rating (ORTG) of 114. Meanwhile, Steph averaged 6.7 assists per game (33.7% assist percentage), with 3.3 turnovers, and boasted a significantly higher ORTG of 125. He also generated 12.6 potential assists per game, emphasizing his larger role as a facilitator.
Team Offenses
The biggest difference between the two was the offensive environment each operated in. The Warriors’ offense was built on constant movement, screens, and tons of team passes. This naturally generated more opportunities for assists. In contrast, the 2006 Lakers relied heavily on isolation and the triangle offense. While Steph only averaged 2.5 isos per game, Kobe shouldered a much larger share of those responsibilities. Though we don’t have the exact play type data, film study clearly shows how stagnant the Lakers offense was compared to the fast-paced, free-flowing Warriors.
Looking at the team’s offensive ratings illustrates this contrast:
- Lakers ORTG (2006): 108.4 (8th in NBA, with a league average of 106.2)
- Warriors ORTG (2016): 114.5 (1st in NBA, with a league average of 106.4)
Kobe deserves credit for elevating a talent-starved roster to a top-10 offense, an impressive feat given the circumstances. However, Steph led a historically great Warriors offense that outpaced the league by over 8 points per 100 possessions—an absurd mark.
Playmaking Archetype
While Kobe was a willing passer, it was usually his backup plan and he moved the ball once he was doubled or his initial attack was shut off. Steph, on the other hand, was much quicker to make decisions and would swing the ball as soon as any advantage was created. His ability to capitalize on any small advantage made him more dynamic as a playmaker, fitting perfectly within Golden State’s pass-and-move system.
I think Kobe often gets underrated as a passer because of the meme-culture we’ve created today. But even with that in mind, he was a tier below Steph in this area.
Defense
Individual Archetypes & Tendencies
Kobe’s defensive game in 2006 was defined by his versatility and relentless ball pressure, often causing problems for opponents with his physicality and aggressive style. He was adept at locking in on key matchups and suffocating guards/wings with intense point-of-attack defense. Though he occasionally gambled on plays and could be slow on rotations as the low-man, Kobe’s vocal leadership on defense added significant value, helping earn him First Team All-Defense honors that year. Statistically, he averaged 1.8 steals, 0.4 blocks, and held a defensive rating of 105 with 3.7 defensive win shares—a solid profile for a star scorer. He remains the only player in NBA history to average 35+ PPG while also making First Team All-Defense in the same season.
On the other hand, Steph’s 2016 defense, while impactful, was less imposing. His 2.1 steals per game, 0.2 blocks, 99.8 defensive rating, and 4.1 defensive win shares highlight his value as a disruptor, particularly in passing lanes and pick-pocketing ball handlers where he created big “splash” plays. However, unlike Kobe, Steph couldn’t consistently shut down primary ball handlers for entire possessions. Kobe was a level above defensively, excelling as a more versatile, physical defender capable of stifling lead guards/wings one-on-one.
Team Defenses
The Lakers were a middling defensive team, ranking 15th in defensive rating (105.7), while the Warriors excelled with the 6th-best defensive rating (102.8) and held opponents to the league’s second-lowest eFG% (47.9%).
While Steph contributed defensively, he wasn’t the driving force behind the Warriors’ defensive success—that was Draymond Green, who finished 2nd in DPOY voting. Kobe, by contrast, was the Lakers’ best defender, lifting them to an average defensive rating largely through his own efforts. Steph, who was probably the Warriors’ 4th-5th best defender, had a more limited impact on this side of the ball. Overall, Kobe’s defensive contributions in 2006 were considerably more valuable than Steph’s in 2016.
Impact
Advanced Metrics
When comparing their advanced stats, there’s not much debate—Steph outpaced Kobe in nearly every category and led the entire NBA across the board in advanced metrics. While Kobe’s season was phenomenal, it doesn’t quite measure up to Steph’s by the numbers (table below). But, there’s more to basketball than analytics, and this raises an interesting debate about floor-raisers versus ceiling-raisers.
A Debate As Old As Time
This comparison is a perfect example of the ‘floor-raiser’ versus ‘ceiling-raiser’ debate. Everyone knows that all the greats do a little bit of both, but 2006 Kobe and 2016 Steph each emulate great versions of each playstyle. Kobe’s impact as a floor-raiser was undeniable—he single-handedly lifted a less-talented Lakers squad to a playoff birth, carrying basically all of the offensive burden himself. Steph, on the other hand, elevated an already strong Warriors roster to historic levels, making them virtually unbeatable in the regular season, to a point that we may never see again.
Ultimately, it’s up to each of us to decide which type of player we value more. While there’s no definitive answer, I think Steph’s season stands out as the clear choice. His 2016 was legendary in every sense, leaving a lasting imprint on NBA history: 73 wins, first unanimous MVP, first player in the 50/45/90 club, scoring title, steals title, most threes made in a season, and MORE. Kobe’s 2006 season is an all-timer for sure, but Steph’s 2016 will live on in a special category forever—and that’s exactly why I started this series. It’s an incredible benchmark, though not an impossible one to surpass.
Stick around to see which competitors have what it takes to challenge Steph’s almighty 2016 run! #RIPKobe
Steph takes round 1 of this series! (1-0 all-time)
Leave a Reply