Where do you rank Kobe all-time? (poll)

[aol4532]

Kobe and Bird are not comparable for a few reasons. One being Bird was actually the dominate player of the league for a long stretch of time. That is just words though. Why that is so is what separates him from Kobe.

Kobe Bryant is a extreme high usage player with a decent superstar PER. PER and Usage are pretty connected with players. The higher there usage the higher there PER usually goes. For Kobe to have his career high PER season he needed a career high 38.7 usage. 8.5% higher than Larry Birds highest usage year. Yet he almost equals Kobe's career high PER.

One of the reasons why Kobe is overrated and Bird underrated is because your looking at one of the most productive none ball dominate players in league history in Bird. The type of player that everyone would love to play with. A player who actually made his teammates better. He didn't need the ball and was an all-time great passer when he did have it. While Kobe is the complete opposite. Kobe has irrational confidence and plays the game 1 way. That is high usage and often making the game very difficult for his teammates. He is simply one of the most difficult players in league history to play with. I heard someone say that Kobe plays every game like he is playing with scrubs. Which makes many of his teammates start playing like scrubs. That the other players on the team only exist to support him in his journey for greatness.

Kobe Bryant stats would suggest I should be comparable to Larry Bird. Unfortunately for him to create those stats he has to use so many possessions that every elite player that comes to the Lakers sees a drop in usage. It is pretty much the Kobe show. Will always be the Kobe show. I could team up Larry Bird with any great player or collection of players without any issues. Kobe Bryant will make someone as low maintenance as Pau Gasol want more touches.

At the same time he not nearly as productive in those possessions as you would hope. He has a strong superstar level production. Not all-time great production. Durant is having better years than Kobe has ever had. Melo last year had at least a top 5 Kobe year. Not bad but just not top 10 all-time worthy. Michael Jordan would retire if he had Kobe's best season as that being a sign that he was almost done. I could say that because he did.

What a **** of garbage. One of those "Kobe is a ballhog he sucks" bull again. Several players have had career years with Kobe, including Gasol, Odom, Turiaf, Ariza, Smush, Sasha, etc. Their FG% pretty much all increased playing with Kobe. The fact that he has 5 rings and is one of the most successful players in this era suggests that his way is good. Kobe has had some problems with great players no doubt (Shaq being the prime example), but it never transpired on the court. Not to mention Shaq himself has had problems with a lot more great players than Kobe.

Most people have Kobe around 9-15, with RealGM putting him at around #10, which is just about right IMO. I fail to see how Kobe is overrated.

5 rings, with 3 of those 5 by the smallest of margins. Should one put so much emphasis on championships, when the difference is so small? I mean, how can you tell that it was Kobe, and not Phil or just simply luck? I mean, Phil doesn't make that speech about not giving the ball to Shaq, doesn't take out Bynum in the 3rd quarter in game 7, both when they're down by double digits, and that's at least 2 rings less.

[LakerLegend]

Only on realgm is an award voted on by the media considered to carry more weight than actual championships....only when it comes to Kobe though.

Nash has more MVP's than Shaq..

[Durins Baynes]

I'll let Horry know that. He has 7 of them.

[TheRobin]

Only on realgm is an award voted on by the media considered to carry more weight than actual championships....only when it comes to Kobe though.

Nash has more MVP's than Shaq..

We value actual play and how valuable you are compared to the other top players in the league.

[LakerLegend]

Bringing up Horry in an argument about the top 10 all time falls in line with the kindergarten logic you've been displaying in this thread, blaming Kobe for 2005 when the two best players on that team missed about 20 games apiece, comparing Melo's last season to Kobe's top 5, KG has a "clear" case ahead of him etc.

[Durins Baynes]

So what you're saying is that the context in which you get rings matters. Good to know. That's what we're using, not "counting rings" like you.

The "Odom was also hurt" argument is as invalid as the Kobe one, because most of Odom's missed games came after the Lakers decided they couldn't make the playoffs and stopped trying to. This was in late March 2005 when guys like Magic were saying in the media that, given the Lakers tough closing schedule, there was basically no way they could make the playoffs; the Lakers had a losing record, and their toughest stretch was coming up (13/17 of their closing games were against winning teams- ten of them 50+ win teams, including 4 back to back games, and this in a season where the Wolves missed the playoffs with a 44 win record). Knowing they'd fall short, the front office let Odom rest to give the team a better chance at a lotto pick. Even with the full squad on the court before Odom shut it down, the Lakers were a losing team, and would have finished a losing team in any event.

[The Infamous1]

Bringing up Horry in an argument about the top 10 all time falls in line with the kindergarten logic you've been displaying in this thread, blaming Kobe for 2005 when the two best players on that team missed about 20 games apiece, comparing Melo's last season to Kobe's top 5, KG has a "clear" case ahead of him etc.

When people use the Horry argument I automatically assume they have no idea what they're talking about. If I have to explain to anyone why championships as a superstar are different then championships won by role players I don't know what to say

[Durins Baynes]

The reason Horry is relevant is because it's about context. Horry's context is he was a role player. Kobe's context is that he was Robin for 3 titles, and won 2 on a stacked team. That's still great, but it hardly compares to the guys we're talking about in the top 10 who could carry non-stacked teams to contention by themselves. The relevance of Horry is he is a reminder why "rings" is a dumb argument- context is what matters, and Kobe's context makes those "5 rings" he got heavily qualified. I'm more impressed by the 2 rings Hakeem got than the 5 Kobe got, because Hakeem had to do a lot more of the hard yards to get them.

[Mutnt]

KG has a "clear" case ahead of him etc.

What's with the sarcasm marks? Explain how Kobe is ahead of KG? I already said, both came into the league at roughly the same time & age, yet Kobe had literary a single better season than KG until 2004 (that was '01 - when everybody was trying to figure out how to stop a 30/15 monster in his prime, meanwhile KG shared his load with Brandon and Wally...)

That's 9 better seasons for KG already despite playing on incomparably crappier casts where he was forced to do a lot of things which he was solid at but really shouldn't have done because it limited him from being able to focus on other things that he excelled in. Meanwhile, Kobe piggy-back rode a team that was already winning 56 games when he was playing 15 mpg and scoring 8 points per game, essentially a top contender before Kobe was even Kobe.

After Shaq had enough of Kobe and took his talents to South Beach, KG still had a better season in 2005 despite still playing with a worse cast consisting of Cassell's corpse and elite chuckers like Spree and Eddie Griffin - seriously, people knock on Smush Parker... he was actually a 12 (55%TS) ppg player, that's not even close to what Spree, Griffin, Ricky Davis etc. were

In 2006 & 2007, again, Kobe had the better casts (especially in 2007) + Phil Jackson, which probably helped. KG was still great as always but getting older to the point that the enormous all-around load he had to carry on both ends of the court was just to much to handle. Nonetheless, I gotta give these two seasons to the Kobester.

2008 is KG again, he rightfully shares the scoring load with his teammates and focuses on defense which he's one of the best ever at (light years ahead of Kobe). Leads his team (despite zero experience of playing together) to a better record and a title over Kobe's team.

Title years, 2009 & 2010 go to Kobe but then 2011 and 2012 I got KG again. Kobe-heads will point out to the massive drop in KG's scoring numbers but that doesn't matter. Both had pretty much the same core casts as in previous years but Boston relied on KG's defense to get further. Kobe was putting some ridiculously bad performances in the playoffs as well.

Last year it was Kobe again.


Now tell me, why should Kobe be ranked ahead? Because he has won more rings when he spent his whole career (sans 2 years) on all-time teams and strong contenders, while KG only got that opportunity when he was already 31 years old and even later had bad luck with injuries to him and other key players as well as a certain superteam spawning in Miami. Imagine Kobe playing on those Wolves until 2008.

The only way to make a sensible argument is if you value Kobe's peak THAT much over KG's, but even then I'd pick KG. He's a 24(55%TS)/14/5 machine with elite defense, low turnovers. Kobe's like 32(57%TS)/5/5 with meh defense and an extremely high usage rate.

I'd definitely see certain team scenarios where I would take Kobe over KG, like if I really needed a scorer on my team, but that's not saying much. I can also envision situations where I'd take Kidd over Kobe but that doesn't make Kidd a better basketball player. If I'm starting from ground zero I'm picking KG. More versatile, more consistently productive, better longevity etc. The only thing he doesn't have is 5 rings and numerous 50+ scoring games in the regular season...

[emotional]

"We value actual play and how valuable you are compared to the other top players in the league."

That is not what the MVP is. The MVP is the best player on the TOP SEEDED TEAM. Notice how it is a function of winning and media narrative.

The whole Horry has 7 rings is a rebuttal a teenager would make thinking they are outsmarting their parents with teen logic, as if most human being can't discern the difference between superstars and roleplayers. Once again, a failure of logic by robots.

if you switched Doc and Phil, the ring count would probably be 2-1, in KG's favor.

Speculation that is once again being used to negate Kobe somehow, even though it is imaginary. Kobe has 5 rings, KG has 1.

He did a little better in 2006 and 2007, but none of it really compares to the names he's being compared to here. -

Why not? Oh because you say so. Silly.

"Not accurate at all. The Cavs originally were trying to win games, and talked up how they could get a title before Lebron."

Its called dissonance. Just because you say something does not mean it is tangible or true. No, keeping the same core sans Lebron is not an attempt to win games.

"Lebron we can see clear evidence of the huge impact they had in their primes, where they could take awful support casts to contention status"

I didn't see a thing. You mean like 08,09, and 2010?

"but it hardly compares to the guys we're talking about in the top 10 who could carry non-stacked teams to contention by themselves."

Like who? No Lebron in 2007 did not "carry" his team to contention. Pistons were injured and old. Shaq was on the downslope. Historically weak East once again and the Spurs crushed them. Funny thing is it took Lebron getting a team MORE stacked than the Lakers to win a championship.

"I'm more impressed by the 2 rings Hakeem got than the 5 Kobe got, because Hakeem had to do a lot more of the hard yards to get them."

How embarrassing.

[emotional]

^Do you also penalize Kareem for that? (crying for a trade)

Kareem - Helped led the Bucks to a title and battled the Celtics to 7 games in their second Finals appearance before he publicly stated that he wants to leave Milwaukee.

Kobe - Blew up the whole team with his pathetic performance in 04, missed the freaking playoffs when he was desperate to clean his image and prove that he can win without Shaq and Phil, followed by two years of mediocrity even though Kobe is supposed to be this huge winner who can make any team good, then demanded a trade by first being taped with unflattering remarks on Bynum, accused this so called 'insider' for blaming him as the cause of Shaq's departure, called Jerry Buss a moron even though he let Kobe use his personal jet to attend the trial, and said Kupchak is an idiot in front of everyone. Not only that, but he has the balls to tell the Lakers he will only accept a trade to the Bulls and they cannot get Deng in return because Kobe wants to play with him. Not only is a guy with two years left on his contract being specific about which place he wants to get traded to, he's also telling his team that they cannot get the best player from the other team as part of the return.

But hey, since Kareem left and Kobe didn't it must mean Kareem is less loyal than Kobe, never mind that Kobe wasn't grinning from ear to ear until the Lakers got Gasol. Kareem's sin is asking to be traded from a place he didn't want to get drafted to in the first place. Kobe? He forced his way to LA by telling the Nets that he doesn't want to play in New Jersey, then after he mooched off Shaq for 3 rings he wanted to leave LA for another big market that has more potential. Ironically the Lakers wouldn't have been in such a sorry shape if Kobe didn't ruin everything in 04.

It would have been hilarious to see how Kobe deals with being in a small market. He would probably leave Milwaukee without blinking.

Got him at #10. The gigantic Kobe-hating monster in me wants to put KG in front of him, but I can't find a legit reason to do it.

While I have trouble putting KG above Kobe I do not think it's difficult to say that they're equals. Like Mutnt pointed out, KG and Kobe were drafted around the same time, and very often Kobe's first few years are written off because he wasn't at the top yet. What was frequently missed is that KG was already a legit allstar player during his early years whereas Kobe's allstar selection was rather questionable when he was still the sixth man on his team. Kobe didn't make the jump to superstardom until his fifth year in the league and his second year under Phil. KG made the jump at around the same time, but who did KG have for guidance? Kobe had the greatest coach who coached the GOAT and the second best SG in history as his mentors, and Kobe has admitted to seeking help from MJ. Who was KG going to ask about becoming an all around player and a defensive anchor, Kevin McHale?

Despite Kobe having much more resources to work with from 97-05 Kobe was only definitely better in 2001. Kobe's playoff run in 2002 was rather pedestrian and he didn't have a long playoff run in 2003 so I have a tough time putting Kobe clearly above KG for those two years. From 06-10, Kobe is the better player. To conclude, KG had six years where he's above Kobe, Kobe had six years where he is above KG, and two years that are neck to neck.

Literally this whole post sounds like an ESPN soap opera narrative. All speculation, all assumptions from people choosing whose subjective percept they want to believe. It is fine to believe this Real Housewives of NBA storyline but don't expect any of us to give it any credibility as to why we should negate or hold Kobe in a lower regard.

[microfib4thewin]

For all the talk about how Kobe is a winner that can make his team good and that KG is just a stat padder on a bad team KG was the one who had a team playing at GOAT level while Kobe hasn't despite having a superteam in 2004 and 2013. Also, the 08 Lakers could have used the momentum of getting Gasol and go on a tear like the 04 Pistons did when they got Rasheed, but they never reached that level. KG had one chance to have a superteam, and that superteam actually played like one. Kobe had three chances and his team never played on the level of the 86 Celtics, 96 Bulls, the 04 Pistons after Rasheed or the 08 Celtics.

[BmanInBigD]

Using the "Horry has 7 rings" argument is no more stupid than the "Kobe is a winner cuz he has 5 rings" argument. For superstars, rings are a function of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and superb play. Kobe has had the good fortune of having all three, but that doesn't in put him above players that played equally as well or better.

[emotional]

Using the "Horry has 7 rings" argument is no more stupid than the "Kobe is a winner cuz he has 5 rings" argument. For superstars, rings are a function of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and superb play. Kobe has had the good fortune of having all three, but that doesn't in put him above players that played equally as well or better.

The more times it occurs the less likely that it is a function of luck.

[emotional]

For all the talk about how Kobe is a winner that can make his team good and that KG is just a stat padder on a bad team KG was the one who had a team playing at GOAT level while Kobe hasn't despite having a superteam in 2004 and 2013. Also, the 08 Lakers could have used the momentum of getting Gasol and go on a tear like the 04 Pistons did when they got Rasheed, but they never reached that level. KG had one chance to have a superteam, and that superteam actually played like one. Kobe had three chances and his team never played on the level of the 86 Celtics, 96 Bulls, the 04 Pistons after Rasheed or the 08 Celtics.

lol KG never had a team playing at GOAT level all by his lonesome. If you don't think the 08-10 Lakers are historically great then don't know what to tell you. Also, no one said KG is a stat padder. KG is one of the greatest and deserves all praise but not just as an excuse to demote Kobe over your own personal biases.

2004 and 2013 superteams? When will people stop using those narratives, thinking we are fourth graders who don't understand the concept of context: thing like age and mileage. I guess MJ, Kareem, Magic, Jerry West and Karl Malone formed an NBA team today, they would be a "superteam" as well. Just to clarify, since people need that on this board, that is hyperbole though the point is quite clear.

[BmanInBigD]

Using the "Horry has 7 rings" argument is no more stupid than the "Kobe is a winner cuz he has 5 rings" argument. For superstars, rings are a function of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and superb play. Kobe has had the good fortune of having all three, but that doesn't in put him above players that played equally as well or better.

The more times it occurs the less likely that it is a function of luck.

Not when circumstances remain static, i.e. one of the GOAT coaches and All-NBA teammates.

[emotional]

Using the "Horry has 7 rings" argument is no more stupid than the "Kobe is a winner cuz he has 5 rings" argument. For superstars, rings are a function of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and superb play. Kobe has had the good fortune of having all three, but that doesn't in put him above players that played equally as well or better.

The more times it occurs the less likely that it is a function of luck.

Not when circumstances remain static, i.e. one of the GOAT coaches and All-NBA teammates.

So I guess Duncan, Jordan, Bird, Russell, Lebron and Magic are all deserving of this very same criticism

[BmanInBigD]

The more times it occurs the less likely that it is a function of luck.

Not when circumstances remain static, i.e. one of the GOAT coaches and All-NBA teammates.

So I guess Duncan, Jordan, Bird, Russell, Lebron and Magic are all deserving of this very same criticism

It's not a criticism, just some context that needs to be considered when evaluating players. But you and Magic just go ahead and keep judging players by number of rings if that make y'all feel better.

[emotional]

Not when circumstances remain static, i.e. one of the GOAT coaches and All-NBA teammates.

So I guess Duncan, Jordan, Bird, Russell, Lebron and Magic are all deserving of this very same criticism

It's not a criticism, just some context that needs to be considered when evaluating players. But you and Magic just go ahead and keep judging players by number of rings if that make y'all feel better.

Then why bring it up if it doesn't alter the discussion. Context is usually brought up to delineate a difference, in this case most people top ten players can have the exact same thing said about them but for Kobe this narrative is somehow something that should be "noted." He had great teammates and a HOF coach that won alot of rings together, historically these are all correlated.

Its not my only criteria but you can keep on calling rings a function of luck. I've made it clear my top 3 factors are 1. Post season success (30%) 2. Subjective Eye Test (40%) 3. Advanced Stats (30%)

Of course all of this is wrapped up in context.

[mademan]

So I guess Duncan, Jordan, Bird, Russell, Lebron and Magic are all deserving of this very same criticism

Definitely. Every player needs to be critiqued on how they played instead of just saying "they won, so it doesn't matter". Kobe won a ring in 2009 playing worse against the same Magic team that Lebron shredded. Why do we celebrate Kobe's championship ring there just because his teammates were able to slow down the Orlando offense?

In 2000/2001/2002, Shaq/Duncan played the best in the playoffs. In 2006 it was Wade. 07 Duncan/Parker. 09 it was Bron. 10 it was Wade or Lebron. In all of Kobe's playoff runs, there's only 1 (08) where he can make a claim as to being the best player. That kind of context is needed instead of the usual "5 RingZZZ..GOAt..." bs that people post.