Kobe missed 23 games since Shaq left. Without Kobe, Lakers recorded 15 wins and 8 loses. Odom missed 46 games since joining the Lakers. Without Odom, Lakers recorded 19-27. This is pretty clear. Odom makes way more impact.
In the 2004-05 season, Odom played 64 games, winning 33; Kobe played 77 winning 28. It should also be noted that Odom played 15 games with his injury. And during that stretch, Lakers lost 11 games.
In the 2005-06 season, both Odom and Kobe played 80 games. But Odom had 45 wins and every Lakers win had Odom in it. Kobe missed out on 2, and Kobe had 43 wins.
In the 2006-07 season, Odom played 56 games, winning 34. And Kobe played 66 games, winning 30.
Odom has a 0.560 winning record, and Kobe has 0.453 winning record rounded up.
From the data, Odom is the better player. In the minds of many Kobe fans, Kobe is the "best," but Odom is statistically better. Doesn't that make Odom the best in the NBA? Or is Kobe just way overrated?
All the data could be gather here:
http://www.lakersweb.net/yearbyyear/lalakers_2004_2005.htm (etc)
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/lamar_odom/career_stats.html (etc)
Jephatitis E. asked, "Why would a better "winning percentage" (not even a relevant statistic for one basketball player) than Kobe Bryant make anyone the best player in the NBA and make them comparable to Jordan?"
Kobe fans kept comparing Kobe to Jordan non-stop. Lamar and Kobe have the same coach and supporting players. There is no outside variable. This is the most valid comparison because nothing is theoretical. If you can compare Kobe to Jordan and Odom is better than Kobe, then you can compare Odom to Jordan, unless, of course, Kobe is way overrated.
If you think comparing Odom to Jordan is ridiculous, then you agree that Kobe is ridiculously overrated.