Which of these recent players will ultimately rank above Kobe?

[One_and_Done]

Which of these more recent players would you choose to build around over Kobe if you were building a team for today’s league. For me that's the same question as who ranks higher all-time.

Assume you will keep the player for their entire career, and if they're still playing project as needed. I haven't bothered including guys like Lebron, Duncan, Curry, Shaq, etc, because they (rightly) kill him in every poll.

[UcanUwill]

I think Jokić is above Kobe for sure.

All the other guys are below right now. SGA, Giannis maybe could rank above Kobe at the end, but I am not sure about that. Luka is probably the next guy who could actually join Jokić in this debate, but he has a long way to go.

I am not the biggest Kobe fan, maybe overall I do NOT think he is overrated, I just think his stans are definitely the most delusional bunch out of the entire sport. But that being said, at the end of the day, Kobe has five NBA championships and was top 3 player in the world for more than a decade, maybe his talent and level could be exceeded, but his actual career most likely wont, for any of these guys not named Jokić.

[NbaAllDay]

Jokic is an obvious choice.
Giannis is proven enough, peaked higher but.time will still tell.
KD I give the edge too as well.

So that's 3 at least.

KG is a tough one. Harder to build around a defense juggernaut in today's league imo.

Luka, Embiid etc possibly but not yet proven enough even if comparable/higher peaks.

Dirk is a no, SGA too soon and Kawhi doesn't have enough peak Years. to trust.

[rand]

1. Jokic (marginal impact defender but probably offensive GOAT)
2. Giannis (poor distance shooter)
3. Luka (no defensive impact)
4. KG (not an elite scorer)
5. KD (weak leader; never won a title as the real #1 option)
6. Dirk (doesn't run the offense, no defensive impact)
7. Kobe (career basically over at age 34)
8. Kawhi (frequently injured; no leadership)
9. SGA (unproven in playoffs)
10. Embiid (durability especially long-term; playoff choker?)

[Chokic]

None of them. Kobe is top 5. Only wemby out of current players can/will surpass him.

[BadWolf]

They all need anfew titles.
Jokic has the best case, but probably needs a few more top years and playoff success.
Giannis won't make it in the end.
Luka mayb, too soon.
No for the rest.

[Frank Dux]

I grew up as a big Kobe fan, but I’m taking Jokic over him no question.

[KGtabake]

Different question on the poll, different question on the title of the thread?

Regarding the poll: I would have picked Giannis and Jokic to build my team around instead of Kobe.

Regarding the threads title question: Nobody on the list is going to be ranked above Kobe when all is said and done because that means that if someone does, he will be a top10 player all time. I can see Giannis, Jokic and maybe Durant having a case but it's going to take effort for years.

[Statlanta]

Maybe Jokic. I think Curry is a debate that should favor Bryant

[dockingsched]

Which of these more recent players would you choose to build around over Kobe if you were building a team for today’s league. For me that's the same question as who ranks higher all-time.

It is most definitely not the same question, at all.

[dhsilv2]

KG is a tough one. Harder to build around a defense juggernaut in today's league imo.

He's also as good a passer or better than any big other than Jokic and perhaps Dray. He had a deadly mid range jump to 20. He also would be if not the best at least on the short list of best rim runners in the league. I'd argue today it's FAR FAR easier to pair KG with an elite offensive guard vs in his day. So while perhaps you can't build around his defense but he'd be pretty easily the best second option in the league and would pair well with virtually any of the plethora of elite offensive guards.

Not interested in debating if KG is better than Kobe. But in terms of unique skills that are HIGHLY valuable today, KG offers more unique skills than Kobe would, and his weaknesses have never been easier to find guys to fill in those gaps.

[dhsilv2]

Which of these more recent players would you choose to build around over Kobe if you were building a team for today’s league. For me that's the same question as who ranks higher all-time.

It is most definitely not the same question, at all.

It is for many. It isn't for others. I think it's a much better way to ask "all time" ranking by qualifying how the person would want you to build your list.

[dockingsched]

Which of these more recent players would you choose to build around over Kobe if you were building a team for today’s league. For me that's the same question as who ranks higher all-time.

It is most definitely not the same question, at all.

It is for many. It isn't for others. I think it's a much better way to ask "all time" ranking by qualifying how the person would want you to build your list.

You’re missing the part about building “for today’s league”.

People certainly do not commonly think that an all time ranking should be based who they’d build around today. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone that seriously held that view.

[NyKnicks1714]

Which of these more recent players would you choose to build around over Kobe if you were building a team for today’s league. For me that's the same question as who ranks higher all-time.

Assume you will keep the player for their entire career, and if they're still playing project as needed. I haven't bothered including guys like Lebron, Duncan, Curry, Shaq, etc, because they (rightly) kill him in every poll.

Change the thread title. Most won't read this and the question you're really asking won't get answered.

[FrobeBryant]

I think there should be a cap on how many Kobe threads one user can create.

[dhsilv2]

It is most definitely not the same question, at all.

It is for many. It isn't for others. I think it's a much better way to ask "all time" ranking by qualifying how the person would want you to build your list.

You’re missing the part about building “for today’s league”.

People certainly do not commonly think that an all time ranking should be based who they’d build around today. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone that seriously held that view.

I did miss that. That's a bit biased and not how I'd do it. I do think "who'd you build around on a random team" is the best test for the rankings. But I'd pause on saying today's league.

[cupcakesnake]

It is for many. It isn't for others. I think it's a much better way to ask "all time" ranking by qualifying how the person would want you to build your list.

You’re missing the part about building “for today’s league”.

People certainly do not commonly think that an all time ranking should be based who they’d build around today. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone that seriously held that view.

I did miss that. That's a bit biased and not how I'd do it. I do think "who'd you build around on a random team" is the best test for the rankings. But I'd pause on saying today's league.

It's been OP's MO. Participates in all kinds of player ranking discussion, but always with this specific criteria. I don't mind the criteria, but I don't see how it can be used as the criteria for useful, functional discussions about all-time rankings.

I do think everyone factors that in to some extent. Players with old fashioned games or era-specific advantages typically are more likely to tumble down the rankings.

For it to be the sole criteria, it doesn't matter how well a player did in his own context. It also puts any older player at a huge disadvantage because we can only be theoretical in how we adapt them and decide to believe things like "player x would have developed a jumper if he played today".

[dhsilv2]

You’re missing the part about building “for today’s league”.

People certainly do not commonly think that an all time ranking should be based who they’d build around today. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone that seriously held that view.

I did miss that. That's a bit biased and not how I'd do it. I do think "who'd you build around on a random team" is the best test for the rankings. But I'd pause on saying today's league.

It's been OP's MO. Participates in all kinds of player ranking discussion, but always with this specific criteria. I don't mind the criteria, but I don't see how it can be used as the criteria for useful, functional discussions about all-time rankings.

I do think everyone factors that in to some extent. Players with old fashioned games or era-specific advantages typically are more likely to tumble down the rankings.

For it to be the sole criteria, it doesn't matter how well a player did in his own context. It also puts any older player at a huge disadvantage because we can only be theoretical in how we adapt them and decide to believe things like "player x would have developed a jumper if he played today".

I admit I have a bias for today's game. I'm not sure how it impacts my top 50 or even 150. But I'm not sure I rank Rik Smits as highly as I should for example (maybe not a good one as i think back to his athletic ability early on). Maybe I should drop Dr J a bit cause for a guy called Dr J...his J needed work. But anyway, it's an odd way to do it. Not an unreasonable one, but odd.

The biggest issue with "today" stuff is that so many here act like what we are seeing is radically different from superstars. It's different but you'd still post Shaq. Duncan still gets his even if you run the offense through him less. And so on...

[Fundamentals21]

Mostly, none of them. Jokic is pretty close to a Top 10'er, but I don't actually see his teams beating the Laker teams in a series. I am not building my team around Giannis, Joker or Durant over Kobe at all. 5 championships is nothing to scoff at. Just watch Denver in this playoff run. Even the 2nd title doesn't come easy.

[Luke]

Is this serious ?

So, basically players with inflated stats and little ( or zero ) championship pedigree can beat one of the top all time players , who was near MJ in 2010 ?