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

[microfib4thewin]

lol KG never had a team playing at GOAT level all by his lonesome.

When did I say he made a team GOAT by himself? The only important thing is KG did play on a team that played at a GOAT level, Kobe never has despite having the opportunities to do so. The answer to that is simple. Kobe has too big of an ego that he will hold his team back when there is a huge stack of talent on the team.

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.

The Boston big 3 were old and had a lot of miles from carrying teams during their younger days. That didn't hinder them in the slightest. In comparison, 04 Shaq and Kobe were much younger, Malone had a lot of mileage but he was also an ironman that finished 20/10 the year prior, Payton was the only one whose age had held him back. So if anything, the 04 Lakers should have a much higher potential at becoming a superteam than the 08 Celtics did.

[BmanInBigD]

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.

Because the conversation was about KG and Kobe, not Kobe vs. Duncan, Jordan, etc. Jeez , you argue like a cheesy defense lawyer, always trying to re-direct. Even above on this page you said "Kobe has 5 rings, KG has 1", as if that's the final word, all that matters.

Adios, I'm done with this madness.

[microfib4thewin]

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

Lebron won with Spo as a head coach, Bird with Fitch and KC Jones, Magic went to the Finals with Mike Dunleavy. Russell won a title with.... himself as the coach. When Duncan and Jordan won their first title Pop and Phil only had two years of experience as a head coach, so they were carving out their legacy alongside those two players. It's not even remotely comparable to Kobe who got Phil when he has already established himself as the greatest coach in history and himself simply a 21 year old that everyone thought was way over his head.

[MrBigShot]

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.

Kareem wins one ring, then asks for a trade because he wants to be in a bigger market. Kobe wins 3 rings with Shaq, and then asks for a trade because the team sucks. And yet...you penalize Kobe but not Kareem? Ok.

2006-2008, where Kobe was considered quite easily the best player in the league in all 3 years?

That's why he won the MVP all 3 of those years... oh wait. He was definitely in the top 2 all three years though right?

And the best player in the NBA wins the MVP every year. Oh wait.....no they don't.

Kobe was never the best player in the league" is sig worthy. Yet somehow there was a solid 3 year stretch where EVERYONE league-wide acknowledged Kobe as the consensus best player in the league. Strange huh? I suppose all of those players, coaches, analysts, and front office personnel are simply misinformed and unreliable right?

When was this 3 year period?

Lifetime achievement my ass. 28/6/5 efficiently, playing all 82 games, 57 wins and led his team to the Finals. You're just salty that he defeated the Spurs handily that year en route to the Finals. It was well deserved and you know it.

Is it better than 21/4/11.5 and 2.7 steals even more efficiently playing 80 games and 56 wins? By a third year player?
Or 19/3/9/ in reduced minutes with goat defensive impact and 66 wins?

He didn't deserve that MVP after he was gifted Pau Gasol.

Yes.

[emotional]

A great coach is a great coach no matter what junction of their career they were at. We weren't talking about coaching legacy, more so ABILITY. I guess using this logic for players, Wizards era MJ was better because "he was already established with a carved out legacy." You say Spoelstra is a bad coach but thats your opinion. Magic went to the finals with Mike Dunleavy and then what? Please finish that statement. Same people bringing up 04 and 08 Finals as negations against Kobe. You are amazing at giving half-statements and omitting important details. Congrats.

Phil Jackson definitely was not the greatest coach ever before joining the Lakers.

As to BMan: The conversation may have been about KG vs Kobe, but I was going more macro with it and why you never hear this argument being made for literally ever other top 15 player when it also applies.

[richboy]

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.

No they played better in the triangle and Phil Jackson. Just to note Gasol over the years has better offensive numbers when Kobe is out. Plus Gasol career high PER was in Memphis. He was very efficient there was well. The only thing Gasol did for Kobe was be sure he wasn't good enough to take too much credit. Gasol should have been one of the most utilized big men in the league with his numbers and instead he had to fight for touches. The triangle and Phil Jackson saved Kobe Bryant from a career of just being a stat padder freezing out his teammates. Anytime Phil Jackson isn't around its a disaster for the rest of the roster. Dwight Howard was willing to play with Kobe if Phil was there. He knows the deal. He read Phil's book. Mike D, Mike Brown, Rudy T pretty much let Kobe do whatever he wanted.

Honestly though your searching. Kobe has played with great players that hated playing with him. So your stuck saying well Smush Parker did well playing with Kobe. Kobe has played with maybe a hundred different teammates. I'm sure there a few players that have done well with him. Especially if you don't want plays run for you. Just like to spot up for jumpers. Derek Fisher perfect player next to Kobe. Odom. He doesn't even like to score. Perfect next to Kobe.

To win titles you need superstar players and Kobe is hell to play with for other high usage players. Kobe himself has said this. It doesn't matter who Kobe plays with. If you play with him you have to change your usage and your style. Kobe has no ability to play a different style. He gets all his self worth in aggressive scoring. If David Stern had not blocked the Gasol/Paul trade right now we be having is Kobe the most difficult player in league history to play with threads. As we watch Kobe rack up 30 plus usage playing with Howard and Paul. Suddenly Steve Nash sucked offensively with the Lakers and everything had to be run with Kobe. People tossed it to the side because of Nash's age. Every year I keep thinking Kobe not going to need to shoot so much this year. Every year he jacking them up at the top of the league.

Your ability to mesh with other stars is huge in evaluating players. This isn't a game of one on one. This is a team game and to win you need great teammates. Pretty much any great player I put next to Kobe I know expect them to see less touches and get less production. Of course I'm sure Smush Parker will make up for it.

[richboy]

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..

Scottie Pippen has 6 titles too. Kobe Bryant doesn't have 5 titles as an alpha. He doesn't have 1 title that he has won leading his team in WS. He has a total of 1 title that he barely led his team in PER. Why do people think if Kobe has 5 rings he should be compared to Jordan and not Pippen?

[emotional]

"Your ability to mesh with other stars is huge in evaluating players."

And literally the only way to evaluate that is by winning. Also, mesh and getting along are two different things. Kobe is very portable and yeah people may not like him, but the results on the court make it extraneous.

He doesn't have 1 title that he has won leading his team in WS. He has a total of 1 title that he barely led his team in PER.

That literally means nothing.

[The Infamous1]

So many players have played the best ball of their career with Kobe but for some reason he keeps getting the label of not making those around him better. I don't get it.

[Nairobi]

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.

I'm not singling u out in particular, or even accusin' u of doin' so, but I'm noticin' a lotta passive-aggressive hate on Bean as far as his spot in the rankings, when folks say things like "lowest 11th" for instance, really in essence sayin' that Kobe's not a top 10 player, or at the very least implying there's a great argument to be had in not rankin' him top 10, yet I've yet to see any other argument than the "context" of takin' every conceivable geometric angle in discrediting Bryant's achievements.

So focusing on your post, again, outside of Russell, Wilton, Abdul-Jabbar, and Jordan, I fail to see how Bryant's rings, stats, and accolades wouldn't put him, I''ll say 6th all-time. Ppl like to dilute this with outside variables (i.e. "impact" and the "eye-test"), yet, I'm sure if Jordan, Bird, Magic, West, Inside The NBA panel, all 30 NBA GM's, current players, were surveyed if they believe Kobe Bryant is unquestionably a top-10 player all-time, that that pole wouldn't come back with most, if not all of these people agreeing with that notion? I'd even go so far as to say that poll would receive similar results if you asked instead "Kobe Bryant as the 6th best player all-time currently, would u agree?"

[MrBigShot]

So many players have played the best ball of their career with Kobe but for some reason he keeps getting the label of not making those around him better. I don't get it.

Some guys just flat out have a vendetta against Kobe. He is as polarizing a player as we've ever seen...without a doubt though, Kobe is capable of making other guys around him better. 07-10 he started to trust his teammates more and become more of a leader.

People are quick to say that Kobe was lucky to play with Shaq, Gasol, Odom ect... throughout his career. I turn it around and say, Shaq/Odom/Gasol benefited from playing with Kobe. Gasol was a good bigman on a bad team before arriving in LA. Playing with Kobe made him a two time NBA champion and there was a brief period were seemingly everybody was calling him the most skilled bigman in the league. Odom, Ariza, Turiaf, Vuecic...what happened to them after leaving the Lakers? Turiaf/Ariza were once good role players. Vuecic was once a decent shooter off the bench. Odom a sixth man of the year. Shaq obviously was dominant before and after Kobe, but I don't think just any elite perimeter player could have accomplished what they did together.

He does have 5 rings, so he must be doing something right.

[BmanInBigD]

So many players have played the best ball of their career with Kobe but for some reason he keeps getting the label of not making those around him better. I don't get it.

Some guys just flat out have a vendetta against Kobe. He is as polarizing a player as we've ever seen...without a doubt though, Kobe is capable of making other guys around him better. 07-10 he started to trust his teammates more and become more of a leader.

People are quick to say that Kobe was lucky to play with Shaq, Gasol, Odom ect... throughout his career. I turn it around and say, Shaq/Odom/Gasol benefited from playing with Kobe. Gasol was a good bigman on a bad team before arriving in LA. Playing with Kobe made him a two time NBA champion and there was a brief period were seemingly everybody was calling him the most skilled bigman in the league. Odom, Ariza, Turiaf, Vuecic...what happened to them after leaving the Lakers? Turiaf/Ariza were once good role players. Vuecic was once a decent shooter off the bench. Odom a sixth man of the year. Shaq obviously was dominant before and after Kobe, but I don't think just any elite perimeter player could have accomplished what they did together.

He does have 5 rings, so he must be doing something right.

Shaq benefitted from playing with Kobe.

And Gasol was the exact same player in Memphis that he was in LA. His usage went down a little so naturally his shooting %'s went up a little. Other than that, he was the exact same player. I said it at the time, no one really seemed to understand what a coup that was for the Lakers to be able to get him for seemingly very little at the time.

But you pulled out the "rings" card again and I guess that trumps any and all other points.

[MrBigShot]

Shaq benefitted from playing with Kobe.

And Gasol was the exact same player in Memphis that he was in LA. His usage went down a little so naturally his shooting %'s went up a little. Other than that, he was the exact same player. I said it at the time, no one really seemed to understand what a coup that was for the Lakers to be able to get him for seemingly very little at the time.

But you pulled out the "rings" card again and I guess that trumps any and all other points.

Yes, he benefited. Kobe benefited from playing with Shaq, and vice versa. If you disagree, I recommend grabbing a dictionary to look up the word benefit. The "rings card" is important because at the end of the day, championships are the goal and the ultimate measure of success in the NBA. You don't achieve that level success as the best player on your team twice in a row without being able to mesh with your teammates. It doesn't happen.

[aol4532]

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...

Kobe's peak wasn't any different than his other years, except for the fact that he just shot a lot more, which he could probably do to any year, if it weren't for Shaq. KG's peak, on the other hand, was clearly a peak.

Can anyone envision peak Kobe with Latrell Sprewell, or a big the equivalent of him and NO Cassell(he was injured) taking a team of Shaq, prime KG, a SF/SG equivalent of Malone, and Payton to 6 games? As a matter of fact, you could take Malone off and I'd still take KG's team. With KG, it's a clean sweep, and that team would probably put up a much better fight against the Pistons, even without Malone or a SG/SF equivalent, as well.

[emotional]

I could actually see that team taking them to six games.

[LakerLegend]

1. Kobe wasn't his usual self in 2004 due to 3 things: offseason knee and shoulder surgeries which he wasn't able to properly rehab because of Colorado, surgery for which he was in Colorado in the first place, not being able to get in usual season shape because of said injuries, and flying back and forth to Colorado for trial things.

2. Malone and Payton were shells of what they were before, Malone especially because he was dealing with injury issues. Shaq was also in the worst shape of his career and a year or two out of his prime.

3. The Lakers were on a bit of cruise control after dispatching the Spurs in a grueling series, who beat them the year before and were considered their biggest roadblock.

4. Kobe beating the defending champion Spurs, then taking a super team of 3 superstars in KG, Allen, and Pierce with a 66- win record and one of the all-time defenses to 6 games with a starting lineup of Fisher, Odom, Radmanovic, and Gasol is at least as impressive as that.

KG's weakness was always that he wasn't able to dominate games on the offensive end anywhere near to the extent Kobe could. When it comes down to it, basketball is an offense driven sport.

[aol4532]

I could actually see that team taking them to six games.

Let's switch Latrell and Malone, and I think most would agree that they are about equal at that point, so you think a team of Kobe and Malone taking the Lakers to 6 games? By what logic?

I don't think you realize how nasty KG's defense was at the time. He was basically guarding both Malone and Shaq, by standing between them, and disrupting their sets with his length.

[Durins Baynes]

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.

It often isn't that actually. You seem very confused- Lebron's team had the 3rd best record in 2012- yet he was MVP, Kobe in 2008 was on the 3rd best team when he "won", Nash's team was 3rd best overall when he won in 2006, in 2004 KG's team had the 2nd best record, Duncan in 2002 was on a team with the 2nd best record, the same is true of many other winners (deserving and otherwise), such as Iverson, Karl Malone, Jordan, etc. So there's context applied too. The MVP award isn't perfect, but it does give a good indication of where you were ranked in any given year, and as the sample size increases that ranking becomes more and more useful as a measure. It's certainly more useful than "RINGZZZ".

Why not? Oh because you say so. Silly.

No, for the reasons I explained, e.g. Bird coming into a 29 win team as a rookie and making them a 61 win team, Kareem coming to the 27 Bucks and making them a 56 win contender, Lebron in 09 and 10, Duncan in 02 and 03, etc, etc. Where is Kobe's analogous example? It doesn't exist, despite him having 3 years to prove he could do it.

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.

Follow your own logic through. If the Cavs were "the same team, but minus Lebron" and that guaranteed they'd suck, then it must mean Lebron was awesome- for being able to carry these sucks to be the best team.

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.

More cognitive dissonance from you it seems- you just admitted that by keeping Lebron's support cast the Cavs were not trying to win, meaning said support cast was bad, but then dismiss the idea Lebron making this bad team into the best team is "carrying" them. Ridiculous.

[aol4532]

1. Kobe wasn't his usual self in 2004 due to 3 things: offseason knee and shoulder surgeries which he wasn't able to properly rehab because of Colorado, surgery for which he was in Colorado in the first place, not being able to get in usual season shape because of said injuries, and flying back and forth to Colorado for trial things.

2. Malone and Payton were shells of what they were before, Malone especially because he was dealing with injury issues. Shaq was also in the worst shape of his career and a year or two out of his prime.

3. The Lakers were on a bit of cruise control after dispatching the Spurs in a grueling series, who beat them the year before and were considered their biggest roadblock.

4. Kobe beating the defending champion Spurs, then taking a super team of 3 superstars in KG, Allen, and Pierce with a 66- win record and one of the all-time defenses to 6 games with a starting lineup of Fisher, Odom, Radmanovic, and Gasol is at least as impressive as that.

KG's weakness was always that he wasn't able to dominate games on the offensive end anywhere near to the extent Kobe could. When it comes down to it, basketball is an offense driven sport.

Malone was a 13, 8 and 4 guy, that's quality starter numbers, and his impact was even higher than that. I forgot what their record was, but I bet it was a lot worse without him. It's the reason why they looked so harmless against the Pistons, once he got injured.

[emotional]

I meant A top seeded team and not THE top seeded team. Carry on.

No cognitive dissonance. The Cavs were mediocre but a good fit for Lebron. The East was injured and old and by default they went to the finals in 07. Not really hard to grasp.

What Lebron did in 09 and 10 were not examples of anything other than incredibly weak first and second round opponents.