Which of these recent players will ultimately rank above Kobe?

[reddyplayerone]

If we can discuss the generalship of Ghengis Khan I think we can discuss these guys bro.

I'm not a bro and we're in no danger of discussing historical monsters here unless they were basketball players.

And even then, it's mostly because YOU won't stop bringing them up.

[FarBeyondDriven]

If you think Kobe is a top 8 player of all time then none of these people

right? To take it a step further, if you have Kobe as a top 10 player, then only Jokic and Giannis have any chance because they both already have two MVPs and have won a championship as THE guy (like Kobe's two later career rings). They both have been top 3 players for years, perennial MVP candidates and are both smack dab in the middle of their primes. Giannis is also a great defender but he has major flaws to his offensive game. Jokic isn't an elite defender but has no holes in his offensive game. KD has weaker rings and only one MVP is 35 y/o so there's no chance he's catching Kobe. Jokic, Giannis and KD are the only guys with even comparable resumes deserving of being in this poll. Whether the question is who could rank above Kobe or who you'd build around over him, the answer is essentially the same. You build around the best player and that's Kobe unless Jokic and Giannis get to serious work over the next several years while still in their primes.

[One_and_Done]

Luka? Is this a joke? Dude has been in the league for six seasons and has won a whopping 12 playoff games lmao. You know who else was drafted the same year as Luka and has as many playoff wins? Trae. Bridges too and he's won 21 playoff games and went to a Finals. Tatum was drafted the year before and has won 52 playoff games, been to the Finals as well and he's not on this list but Luka is?!! I'll never understand the Luka obsession. He's empty stats in a joke league with meaningless offensive numbers.

People are voting based on the end of their careers. Did you read the OP?

yeah, I did, and he doesn't deserve to be in this poll. It's like people still view Luka as this bright-eyed 18 y/o when in fact he's already 25 y/o. His window to win multiple rings and MVPs started already and will be closed before you know it going by how little he cares for his body.

By the time Kobe was 25 y/o he'd won three championships, was among the league leaders in scoring (when scoring was actually still hard) and was simultaneously making all-nba defensive teams.

To catch Kobe, Luka would have to miraculously stop being one of the worst defenders in the league, become one of the best in fact, win 5 rings and multiple MVPs. All while playing in Dallas while in a brutal Western Conference and do it before his prime is through. He's got about 8 more prime seasons. That's a lot to expect. Impossible tbh.

I'm sorry, but flashy play and winning scoring titles in the easiest era to score doesn't make him deserve to be mentioned as someone that could ever approach Kobe let alone rank above him. I mean, what are we even doing here?

At least with Tatum, he's widely considered one of the better wing defenders while putting up great offensive numbers and he's actually been to 4 ECF and a Finals. Yet he's missing from the poll which is understandable because having him in it is only slightly less comical than having Luka in it.

Luka doesn't need to win any rings to be ranked ahead of Kobe, he just needs to be better at basketball. Since he already is, he basically just needs to avoid injuries and he'll finish ahead.

[lakerz12]

People are voting based on the end of their careers. Did you read the OP?

yeah, I did, and he doesn't deserve to be in this poll. It's like people still view Luka as this bright-eyed 18 y/o when in fact he's already 25 y/o. His window to win multiple rings and MVPs started already and will be closed before you know it going by how little he cares for his body.

By the time Kobe was 25 y/o he'd won three championships, was among the league leaders in scoring (when scoring was actually still hard) and was simultaneously making all-nba defensive teams.

To catch Kobe, Luka would have to miraculously stop being one of the worst defenders in the league, become one of the best in fact, win 5 rings and multiple MVPs. All while playing in Dallas while in a brutal Western Conference and do it before his prime is through. He's got about 8 more prime seasons. That's a lot to expect. Impossible tbh.

I'm sorry, but flashy play and winning scoring titles in the easiest era to score doesn't make him deserve to be mentioned as someone that could ever approach Kobe let alone rank above him. I mean, what are we even doing here?

At least with Tatum, he's widely considered one of the better wing defenders while putting up great offensive numbers and he's actually been to 4 ECF and a Finals. Yet he's missing from the poll which is understandable because having him in it is only slightly less comical than having Luka in it.

Luka doesn't need to win any rings to be ranked ahead of Kobe, he just needs to be better at basketball. Since he already is, he basically just needs to avoid injuries and he'll finish ahead.

So if winning is no longer the measure of being “better at basketball” then what is? Individual Stats?

Does winning games matter at all?

[SpreeS]

1. Most likely Giannis/Jokic in near future;
2. Too early to say - Doncic;
3. KG - in the same tier, Dirk - no;
4. Other players from this gerention dont have a chance.

[One_and_Done]

yeah, I did, and he doesn't deserve to be in this poll. It's like people still view Luka as this bright-eyed 18 y/o when in fact he's already 25 y/o. His window to win multiple rings and MVPs started already and will be closed before you know it going by how little he cares for his body.

By the time Kobe was 25 y/o he'd won three championships, was among the league leaders in scoring (when scoring was actually still hard) and was simultaneously making all-nba defensive teams.

To catch Kobe, Luka would have to miraculously stop being one of the worst defenders in the league, become one of the best in fact, win 5 rings and multiple MVPs. All while playing in Dallas while in a brutal Western Conference and do it before his prime is through. He's got about 8 more prime seasons. That's a lot to expect. Impossible tbh.

I'm sorry, but flashy play and winning scoring titles in the easiest era to score doesn't make him deserve to be mentioned as someone that could ever approach Kobe let alone rank above him. I mean, what are we even doing here?

At least with Tatum, he's widely considered one of the better wing defenders while putting up great offensive numbers and he's actually been to 4 ECF and a Finals. Yet he's missing from the poll which is understandable because having him in it is only slightly less comical than having Luka in it.

Luka doesn't need to win any rings to be ranked ahead of Kobe, he just needs to be better at basketball. Since he already is, he basically just needs to avoid injuries and he'll finish ahead.

So if winning is no longer the measure of being “better at basketball” then what is? Individual Stats?

Does winning games matter at all?

Winning matters, but so does the context. Luka is winning plenty, he just might not win a title because he doesn't have the luxury of being on stacked teams like Kobe was. This isn't binary, whereby if you don't win the title you're a loser. The guy carrying his dud team to 50 wins can be a winner too.

[Asianiac_24]

Jokic and Luka are almost locks at their current pace. Jokic IMO is already above Kobe.

Wemby is very possible, but too early to tell.

Giannis have a shot, but his game won't age well enough.

Embiid needs to do a lot from now on to do it.

SGA has a shot but I personally don't see it.

Everyone else has virtually no shot.

[BigShot Bojan]

Jokic is so far ahead of all the other players on this list….i take Jokic over Kobe easily

[Uncle Mxy]

Even if they all ultimately rank above Kobe, their success is only possible because of Kobe.
Just check out this Kobe fanboy (and likely RealGM poster), who explains it pretty well:

https://t.ly/oKkBr

[One_and_Done]

Even if they all ultimately rank above Kobe, their success is only possible because of Kobe.
Just check out this Kobe fanboy (and likely RealGM poster), who explains it pretty well:

https://t.ly/oKkBr

I'll pass.

[CobraCommander]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dawn-staley-if-caitlin-clark-wins-the-championship--shes-a-goat-164827879.html

More validation that the players see the chips more important than JUST stats.

Anyone on this list without a lot of Rings isn’t going to pass Kobe in the eyes of the players.

You don’t play for stats you play for rings at the top level. 5 rings is 5 times he defeated all enemies - you gotta do that to matter in the long run

[One_and_Done]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dawn-staley-if-caitlin-clark-wins-the-championship--shes-a-goat-164827879.html

More validation that the players see the chips more important than JUST stats.

Anyone on this list without a lot of Rings isn’t going to pass Kobe in the eyes of the players.

You don’t play for stats you play for rings at the top level. 5 rings is 5 times he defeated all enemies - you gotta do that to matter in the long run

Players say alot of stupid ish. Remember that time Charles Barkley said McHale waa the toughest guy he play against, and that Popeye Jones was tougher to match up with than Larry Bird.

[CobraCommander]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dawn-staley-if-caitlin-clark-wins-the-championship--shes-a-goat-164827879.html

More validation that the players see the chips more important than JUST stats.

Anyone on this list without a lot of Rings isn’t going to pass Kobe in the eyes of the players.

You don’t play for stats you play for rings at the top level. 5 rings is 5 times he defeated all enemies - you gotta do that to matter in the long run

Players say alot of stupid ish. Remember that time Charles Barkley said McHale waa the toughest guy he play against, and that Popeye Jones was tougher to match up with than Larry Bird.

Fans look at what players do and do they think it’s exciting flashy or fun and players value winning.

You know why?

Cause they can all play but they can’t all win.

Winning is the only way to have a true meritorious system. Luka vs Booker is opinion and you can have your opinion

But Kobe vs Tmac is settled because while they might have been equally talented one has 5 rings and the other has zero.

The players know tmac was a monster but his story is a story of “what if” and Kobe’s is a legend.


Only on REALGM and Reddit does a guy get considered an all time great without winning it all.

You guys seem to use stats to convince you that being the ultimate winner doesn’t matter when every athlete that competes KNOW NO ONE CaReS about second place - it’s win or lose period

And there is only one real winner every year...

[tsherkin]

Of course he didn't. The offense ran through Dirk but Dirk did not run the offense. Someone else brought the ball up, someone else typically initiated the half-court offense and someone else made a pass to Dirk in his chosen set-up spots. That's why Dirk averaged the least assists of any player on this list and had the largest percentage of his own FGs assisted. If the percentage of the time each player had the ball was recorded, Dirk would undoubtedly rank 10th on this list in that measure by a clear margin.

He WAS the offense. Who was running the offense is immaterial because they weren't really doing anything special for him in terms of setting him up for his buckets. He did that with his off-ball movement and positioning, and the versatility inherent to his range of offensive skills.

You don't HAVE to be a helio player to be very effective, which was a big part of all the praise around Steph's shift more off-ball under Kerr. Also, percentage of time a given player has the ball isn't actually a measure of quality in any way, just how ball dominant they are. In essence, you're making the pro-Dirk argument in terms of portability.

[One_and_Done]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dawn-staley-if-caitlin-clark-wins-the-championship--shes-a-goat-164827879.html

More validation that the players see the chips more important than JUST stats.

Anyone on this list without a lot of Rings isn’t going to pass Kobe in the eyes of the players.

You don’t play for stats you play for rings at the top level. 5 rings is 5 times he defeated all enemies - you gotta do that to matter in the long run

Players say alot of stupid ish. Remember that time Charles Barkley said McHale waa the toughest guy he play against, and that Popeye Jones was tougher to match up with than Larry Bird.

Fans look at what players do and do they think it’s exciting flashy or fun and players value winning.

You know why?

Cause they can all play but they can’t all win.

Winning is the only way to have a true meritorious system. Luka vs Booker is opinion and you can have your opinion

But Kobe vs Tmac is settled because while they might have been equally talented one has 5 rings and the other has zero.

The players know tmac was a monster but his story is a story of “what if” and Kobe’s is a legend.


Only on REALGM and Reddit does a guy get considered an all time great without winning it all.

You guys seem to use stats to convince you that being the ultimate winner doesn’t matter when every athlete that competes KNOW NO ONE CaReS about second place - it’s win or lose period

And there is only one real winner every year...

Barkley must rate Popeye Jones so high because of all those rings he won I guess.

[CobraCommander]

Players say alot of stupid ish. Remember that time Charles Barkley said McHale waa the toughest guy he play against, and that Popeye Jones was tougher to match up with than Larry Bird.

Fans look at what players do and do they think it’s exciting flashy or fun and players value winning.

You know why?

Cause they can all play but they can’t all win.

Winning is the only way to have a true meritorious system. Luka vs Booker is opinion and you can have your opinion

But Kobe vs Tmac is settled because while they might have been equally talented one has 5 rings and the other has zero.

The players know tmac was a monster but his story is a story of “what if” and Kobe’s is a legend.


Only on REALGM and Reddit does a guy get considered an all time great without winning it all.

You guys seem to use stats to convince you that being the ultimate winner doesn’t matter when every athlete that competes KNOW NO ONE CaReS about second place - it’s win or lose period

And there is only one real winner every year...

Barkley must rate Popeye Jones so high because of all those rings he won I guess.

No cause Barkley A- never B- Barkley being controversial- dude knows Popeye sucked… lol You and I both know point a and point b true.

Also I don’t know if you ever played a sport or at what level. But a lot of The best women already down grading Clark for not getting a championship.

The best of the best need differentiation- talent and other stats don’t tell the story. You don’t play to be efficient. You play to win.

If realgm guys ruled the world - you would judge someone based on advanced stats while the rest of the world asking - “who won?!”

You could score 100 and lose and you still lost -


I agree in the real non sports world - efficiency and effectiveness are rewarded because there is rarely a scoreboard that says win or lose… except maybe sales - you either hit quota or you didn’t - and fired lol

[One_and_Done]

Fans look at what players do and do they think it’s exciting flashy or fun and players value winning.

You know why?

Cause they can all play but they can’t all win.

Winning is the only way to have a true meritorious system. Luka vs Booker is opinion and you can have your opinion

But Kobe vs Tmac is settled because while they might have been equally talented one has 5 rings and the other has zero.

The players know tmac was a monster but his story is a story of “what if” and Kobe’s is a legend.


Only on REALGM and Reddit does a guy get considered an all time great without winning it all.

You guys seem to use stats to convince you that being the ultimate winner doesn’t matter when every athlete that competes KNOW NO ONE CaReS about second place - it’s win or lose period

And there is only one real winner every year...

Barkley must rate Popeye Jones so high because of all those rings he won I guess.

No cause Barkley A- never B- Barkley being controversial- dude knows Popeye sucked… lol You and I both know point a and point b true.

Also I don’t know if you ever played a sport or at what level. But a lot of The best women already down grading Clark for not getting a championship.

The best of the best need differentiation- talent and other stats don’t tell the story. You don’t play to be efficient. You play to win.

If realgm guys ruled the world - you would judge someone based on advanced stats while the rest of the world asking - “who won?!”

You could score 100 and lose and you still lost -


I agree in the real non sports world - efficiency and effectiveness are rewarded because there is rarely a scoreboard that says win or lose… except maybe sales - you either hit quota or you didn’t - and fired lol

So when players say something you agree with, we should take it seriously, and when they say something you don't agree with they must have been kidding. Got it.

[CobraCommander]

Barkley must rate Popeye Jones so high because of all those rings he won I guess.

No cause Barkley A- never B- Barkley being controversial- dude knows Popeye sucked… lol You and I both know point a and point b true.

Also I don’t know if you ever played a sport or at what level. But a lot of The best women already down grading Clark for not getting a championship.

The best of the best need differentiation- talent and other stats don’t tell the story. You don’t play to be efficient. You play to win.

If realgm guys ruled the world - you would judge someone based on advanced stats while the rest of the world asking - “who won?!”

You could score 100 and lose and you still lost -


I agree in the real non sports world - efficiency and effectiveness are rewarded because there is rarely a scoreboard that says win or lose… except maybe sales - you either hit quota or you didn’t - and fired lol

So when players say something you agree with, we should take it seriously, and when they say something you don't agree with they must have been kidding. Got it.

No - I’m saying the winners say winning is most important and Barkley is great but he isn’t a winner at the level of MJ, Hakeem, Isaiah, Bird or Magic - all guys that led teams to wins while he played

[One_and_Done]

How were Jordan and Magic at talent evaluation in Charlotte and LA?

Here's Isiah's top 5 players. He has Jordan 4th, ahead of Dr J but behind Magic, Bird and Kareem. Should we pretend to take him seriously just because he was good at basketball? The skill of being good at playing with a ball, and evaluating talent while running a multi-billion dollar company, are completely different.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/04/30/isiah-thomas-says-michael-jordan-is-only-fourth-best-player-he-ever-faced/

[One_and_Done]

Jokic is so far ahead of all the other players on this list….i take Jokic over Kobe easily

Honestly most of these guys are easy choices over Kobe.