RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #13 (Kobe Bryant)

[eminence]

I am very curious what all this has to do with how a 60's guard would fare today.

As a qualified LA Fitness hooper I figured I could comment on how close my own skill level is to 60s/70s pros. Then just some fun memories from each.

You have played 60's/70's pros?

That’s more Pens era

Do I need to get wiped off the board by Magnus to know that his skill level is higher than my own?

[therealbig3]

How much better is West for the 60s than Kobe for the 00s? West's volume is less for his era than Kobe's when you take into account pace and minutes, but he is EXTREMELY efficient compared to his peers. So his WS stats are better. Still, at the end of the day, he's not really any closer to being better than Wilt/Russell than Kobe was to being better than Shaq/Duncan.

This is an interesting thought exercise and how to compare these players.

On one hand, West led his team to a ton of NBA Finals while West/Oscar were clearly a tier up on all other perimeter players from that era.

On the other hand, arguments for CP3/Wade/LeBron/Nash as perimeter players were all close to, at, or above Kobe's level peak-for-peak.

Now, Kobe's prime longevity is a feather in his cap against just about any perimeter player post-Miller and pre-LeBron.

Which kind of speaks to how much better depth is on the perimeter in terms of talent in the last 20 years vs the 60s/70s. Kobe not standing out as much has more to do with how much better the talent pool became than West/Oscar being that much better than him imo. I think in terms of distance from best player (West vs Russell/Wilt and Kobe vs Shaq/Duncan/LeBron), it’s pretty much the same. It’s just that there were more guys with an argument for being “next best” in Kobe’s time (CP3/Wade/Nash…none of whom actually have a good case over West or Oscar because of weak longevity, but I think you’ll find their peak arguments to be quite strong).

[Colbinii]

How much better is West for the 60s than Kobe for the 00s? West's volume is less for his era than Kobe's when you take into account pace and minutes, but he is EXTREMELY efficient compared to his peers. So his WS stats are better. Still, at the end of the day, he's not really any closer to being better than Wilt/Russell than Kobe was to being better than Shaq/Duncan.

This is an interesting thought exercise and how to compare these players.

On one hand, West led his team to a ton of NBA Finals while West/Oscar were clearly a tier up on all other perimeter players from that era.

On the other hand, arguments for CP3/Wade/LeBron/Nash as perimeter players were all close to, at, or above Kobe's level peak-for-peak.

Now, Kobe's prime longevity is a feather in his cap against just about any perimeter player post-Miller and pre-LeBron.

Which kind of speaks to how much better depth is on the perimeter in terms of talent in the last 20 years vs the 60s/70s. Kobe not standing out as much has more to do with how much better the talent pool became than West/Oscar being that much better than him imo. I think in terms of distance from best player (West vs Russell/Wilt and Kobe vs Shaq/Duncan/LeBron), it’s pretty much the same. It’s just that there were more guys with an argument for being “next best” in Kobe’s time (CP3/Wade/Nash…none of whom actually have a good case over West or Oscar because of weak longevity, but I think you’ll find their peak arguments to be quite strong).

I am going to be nominating Nash shortly

[AEnigma]

Do I need to get wiped off the board by Magnus to know that his skill level is higher than my own?

Do you think Mikhail Tal would be anything close to a FIDE candidate today if you gave him three months access to a decent engine and database of games?

I respect him and think he belongs on a historical list of the greatest players, but the reality is that he cannot measure up to people who have been learning in the modern chess environment for years, and there is no real reason to just automatically assume that he could recreate his status as one of the absolute best in the world had he been born recently.

[f4p]

but why? mathematically, i mean. you've mentioned things are suppressed in the 60's, but how?

Because mathematically a bigger number of teams means bigger fluctuations and bigger disparities. For a team to win by 8, another team needs to lose by 8. With more teams there are bigger losers and bigger winners and in games where the losers are filtered out, that leaves bigger winners.

Moreover

kobe played most of his career after decades worth of the talent pool expanding

SRS does not measure how a team performs relative to the talent pool, it measures how a team peforms relative to the league. Since SRS is an average, "winners' will rack up lower SRS over the best 150 players than they would against the best 450. When you say "+3 in 1960=+3 in 1990 or 2000", what you are really saying is "+3 over the best 150 players = +3 over the best 450". The talent pool being better or worse does not matter. A smaller league is more talented relative to that pool.

if the best 150 come from the only 150 people on earth who play basketball and the 450 comes from a talent pool of 1 billion people playing basketball, of course it would matter. it will be much easier to stand out against the 150. again, to say the smaller league is more talented requires you to say you don't think the talent pool has tripled since the 1960's. maybe you don't think it has, but that's what it requires.

SRS is a proxy, it is not the real thing, and in situations where it no longer functions as a proxy, it's "purity" is not so relevant. Say Kobe beat a bunch of good teams, saying he beat better teams than Boston relative to era is nonsense.

so you really don't think the duncan spurs are as good as any team from the 1960's?

let's ask this another way. if kobe bryant didn't beat the most combined talent/goodness (however you want to word it) over history, then who did? who is at the top of the list? keeping in mind this isn't a "per series" question, but a total (i.e. winning 20 series against the same quality team should be considered twice as much as winning 10 series against the same quality team). if my list is definitely wrong, then what is right?

[HeartBreakKid]

That isn't my point and I don't think you read cupcakesnake.

My point is more so about people saying 1960s guards won't translate. If that is their stance, then Kobe shouldn't be the only guard better than them. Considering Wade and Harden are knocking on the door on the Top 20, their arguments should be clearly ahead of West is Kobe's argument is West can't translate well to this era.

I read cupcake’s point fine. You decided to turn it into a lazy quip that applies to literally no voter here.

You are right, unibro isn't a voter

probably wont see him again until anthony davis starts getting mentions and we'll have to factor in why we are fools for thinking moses malone might be better than him.

[eminence]

Do I need to get wiped off the board by Magnus to know that his skill level is higher than my own?

Do you think Mikhail Tal would be anything close to a FIDE candidate today if you gave him three months access to a decent engine and database of games?

I respect him and think he belongs on a historical list of the greatest players, but the reality is that he cannot measure up to people who have been learning in the modern chess environment for years, and there is no real reason to just automatically assume that he could recreate his status as one of the absolute best in the world had he been born recently.

No, but he could blindfold simul the entire local LA Fitness equivalent with zero difficulty.

[AEnigma]

Firing all these potshots, but he has a better eye for film than most of the people here (myself included). I guess it is easier just to dismiss him as a fanboy when you reflexively dislike the conclusions made about some nostalgic favourites.

[HeartBreakKid]

Do I need to get wiped off the board by Magnus to know that his skill level is higher than my own?

Do you think Mikhail Tal would be anything close to a FIDE candidate today if you gave him three months access to a decent engine and database of games?

I respect him and think he belongs on a historical list of the greatest players, but the reality is that he cannot measure up to people who have been learning in the modern chess environment for years, and there is no real reason to just automatically assume that he could recreate his status as one of the absolute best in the world had he been born recently.

No, but he could blindfold simul the entire local LA Fitness equivalent with zero difficulty.

Could he beat the plumbers union though?

[f4p]

No one is saying humans have evolved lol, it’s the evolution of the sport from the first 20 years to when it existed to the last 20 years lol

to me, its also just math. realistically, how big is the talent pool for a sport that is barely televised and where the money is such that you are probably going to need an offseason job unless you are a very good player and are definitely going to need a career after basketball unless you are a very, very good player? part of the reason a league expands is because it thinks there is money to be made, which is based on how popular the sport has become, which almost certainly feeds into how big the talent pool is. now, american sports seem to have decided that 30-32 teams is about the cap of what they can do so we have seen less team expansion but enormous "per player" monetary expansion, which draws in even more talent, and gets them training from a younger age because you have to beat out so many more people and just having fun through your high school years will result in your being left behind. there's no reason to think the talent hasn't probably far outstripped the tripling/quadrupling of teams from jerry west's day. so the first 25 years of the nba (1/3 of the years) probably doesn't even represent 1/10 of the total talent. it could be even more extreme than that, though i don't think it grew quite so fast in the 70's or early 80's.

[70sFan]

Firing all these potshots, but he has a better eye for film than most of the people here (myself included). I guess it is easier just to dismiss him as a fanboy when you reflexively dislike the conclusions made about some nostalgic favourites.

I don't dismiss what he said, I consider his input valuable.

I am just out of town on holiday and want to spend happy days with my wife, so I won't respond in details, I just want to point out that defenses Kobe struggled against are outdated by modern standards, yet he doesn't seem to have any problems with that. Same with the conversation about Hakeem when he said Hakeem easily would be a superstar today.

I think people nostalgic to 1990s and 2000s often underestimate how massive the change is between these eras and now. People often laugh at me suggesting that Jordan (or any other 1990s star) played in the league closer resembling the 1960s than the 2020s, but it's really the case in my opinion at this point.

If you want to be consistent and evaluate players by how they fit modern league, you should stop believing that Kobe is a modern player, because he's not.

[HeartBreakKid]

Firing all these potshots, but he has a better eye for film than most of the people here (myself included). I guess it is easier just to dismiss him as a fanboy when you reflexively dislike the conclusions made about some nostalgic favourites.

I don't dismiss what he said, I consider his input valuable.

I am just out of town on holiday and want to spend happy days with my wife, so I won't respond in details, I just want to point out that defenses Kobe struggled against are outdated by modern standards, yet he doesn't seem to have any problems with that. Same with the conversation about Hakeem when he said Hakeem easily would be a superstar today.

I think people nostalgic to 1990s and 2000s often underestimate how massive the change is between these eras and now. People often laugh at me suggesting that Jordan (or any other 1990s star) played in the league closer resembling the 1960s than the 2020s, but it's really the case in my opinion at this point.

If you want to be consistent and evaluate players by how they fit modern league, you should stop believing that Kobe is a modern player, because he's not.

Yeah, I dont get how someone can say Jerry West wouldn't be a professional basketball player if he was born today. We may as well say Kobe Bryant wouldn't be either.

We'd have more 6'6 plumbers if they were born later though. Would be very hard to get under the sink.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Snip

To clarify, I’m not voting and I don’t care, if you don’t care about how they are in an absolute sense when evaluating them that’s fine. I’m debating the fact that guard play in the 60s can compare to guard play in the 2000s lol

No one is arguing against 2000s guard play being a step up. Everyone here has acknowledged the era component. People are interpreting the difference and how much of that has to do with rules differently from you.

[Colbinii]

We'd have more 6'6 plumbers if they were born later though. Would be very hard to get under the sink.

They just cut a hole in the floor and work from the basement.

[AEnigma]

Firing all these potshots, but he has a better eye for film than most of the people here (myself included). I guess it is easier just to dismiss him as a fanboy when you reflexively dislike the conclusions made about some nostalgic favourites.

I don't dismiss what he said, I consider his input valuable.

I am just out of town on holiday and want to spend happy days with my wife, so I won't respond in details, I just want to point out that defenses Kobe struggled against are outdated by modern standards, yet he doesn't seem to have any problems with that. Same with the conversation about Hakeem when he said Hakeem easily would be a superstar today.

I think people nostalgic to 1990s and 2000s often underestimate how massive the change is between these eras and now. People often laugh at me suggesting that Jordan (or any other 1990s star) played in the league closer resembling the 1960s than the 2020s, but it's really the case in my opinion at this point.

If you want to be consistent and evaluate players by how they fit modern league, you should stop believing that Kobe is a modern player, because he's not.

In 2013 Kobe was one of the five most efficient volume scorers in the league, alongside Lebron, Durant, Harden, and Steph (and then Carmelo had the highest volume overall but lesser efficiency).

Somehow all four of those other players have managed to translate superbly well to the modern league.

Yeah, I dont get how someone can say Jerry West wouldn't be a professional basketball player if he was born today. We may as well say Kobe Bryant wouldn't be either.

He literally said the opposite; seems like a lot of people here stop reading once they sense a player they like being abstractly besmirched.

The argument isn’t, if Jerry west was born today, the argument is plopping Jerry west to today’s game and giving him some time to adjust. I agree if Jerry west grew up today he’d be great, thats a different argument altogether though.

[HeartBreakKid]

Firing all these potshots, but he has a better eye for film than most of the people here (myself included). I guess it is easier just to dismiss him as a fanboy when you reflexively dislike the conclusions made about some nostalgic favourites.

I don't dismiss what he said, I consider his input valuable.

I am just out of town on holiday and want to spend happy days with my wife, so I won't respond in details, I just want to point out that defenses Kobe struggled against are outdated by modern standards, yet he doesn't seem to have any problems with that. Same with the conversation about Hakeem when he said Hakeem easily would be a superstar today.

I think people nostalgic to 1990s and 2000s often underestimate how massive the change is between these eras and now. People often laugh at me suggesting that Jordan (or any other 1990s star) played in the league closer resembling the 1960s than the 2020s, but it's really the case in my opinion at this point.

If you want to be consistent and evaluate players by how they fit modern league, you should stop believing that Kobe is a modern player, because he's not.

In 2013 Kobe was one of the five more efficient volume scorers in the league, alongside Lebron, Durant, Harden, and Steph (and then Carmelo had the highest volume overall but lesser efficiency).

Somehow all four of those other players have managed to translate superbly well to the modern league.

Yeah, I dont get how someone can say Jerry West wouldn't be a professional basketball player if he was born today. We may as well say Kobe Bryant wouldn't be either.

He literally said the opposite; seems like a lot of people here stop reading once they sense a player they like being abstractly besmirched.

The argument isn’t, if Jerry west was born today, the argument is plopping Jerry west to today’s game and giving him some time to adjust. I agree if Jerry west grew up today he’d be great, thats a different argument altogether though.

I wasn't talking about MyUniBroDavis there. OhayoKD said that.

Are you his lawyer or something?

[AEnigma]

Yeah, I dont get how someone can say Jerry West wouldn't be a professional basketball player if he was born today. We may as well say Kobe Bryant wouldn't be either.

He literally said the opposite; seems like a lot of people here stop reading once they sense a player they like being abstractly besmirched.

The argument isn’t, if Jerry west was born today, the argument is plopping Jerry west to today’s game and giving him some time to adjust. I agree if Jerry west grew up today he’d be great, thats a different argument altogether though.

I wasn't talking about MyUniBroDavis there. OhayoKD said that.

And Ohayo would very much apply the same standard to Kobe because his entire stance is and has always been that he thinks “what if you were born in x year” is totally meaningless because so much about an individual life goes beyond the idea of being fated to play basketball or whatever.

Are you his lawyer or something?

I think it is pretty gross when the collective response to a long post based on hours of film watching (from someone with extensive hands-on familiarity with how the game is played right now) is non-stop memeing and active refusal to actually engage with any points or observations presented. At that point we may as well be on the General Board.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Yeah I’ve gone into the defenses in 00 vs now a bit, doesn’t make much sense to me to say defenses evolved from then when you think about how it’s happened.

I literally said not bigs like bill Russell and not wilt lol, if u see a dude your height go for double underhand layups and have a shooting form with a mid seizure midair while dribbling abiding by palming rules and get spooked thats a you problem lol.

[eminence]

to me, its also just math. realistically, how big is the talent pool for a sport that is barely televised and where the money is such that you are probably going to need an offseason job unless you are a very good player and are definitely going to need a career after basketball unless you are a very, very good player? part of the reason a league expands is because it thinks there is money to be made, which is based on how popular the sport has become, which almost certainly feeds into how big the talent pool is. now, american sports seem to have decided that 30-32 teams is about the cap of what they can do so we have seen less team expansion but enormous "per player" monetary expansion, which draws in even more talent, and gets them training from a younger age because you have to beat out so many more people and just having fun through your high school years will result in your being left behind. there's no reason to think the talent hasn't probably far outstripped the tripling/quadrupling of teams from jerry west's day. so the first 25 years of the nba (1/3 of the years) probably doesn't even represent 1/10 of the total talent. it could be even more extreme than that, though i don't think it grew quite so fast in the 70's or early 80's.

I think those are all reasonable thoughts on the 'total talent'.

I do have some initial thoughts that push me back towards the 'oldies' even with similar thoughts (though I think slightly more conservative than you on how much the talent pool has expanded):
-The top end stars (guys being considered here and probably for most of the top 100) were likely attracted to the league notably more quickly than the average talent (for financial reasons), somewhat similar to how Euro superstars almost always come over to the NBA now while more middling talents may stay in Europe. Those are the types of players we'll be talking about in the Top 100, not the average.
-The most recent ~20% of talent is probably seen as ineligible for a spot this high for many voters based on longevity more than level of play, that's what you'll get with half careers. Giannis/Jokic/others very may well pass this tier, but folks may not feel they've done so yet.
-I think the 60's quartet gets a hurt by looking at direct cut-offs like 'the first 25 years' vs a little more broadly. They may be 4 of the top 5 of the first 25 years (with Mikan), but they may also be 4 of the top 6-8 of the first 40 years (adding KAJ and maybe DrJ/Moses). And at that level of talent/success/whatever rarity I do think the distribution is pretty heavily determined by randomness, and there just happened to be a heavy concentration that arrived with Wilt/Oscar/West in a 2 year period, imo.

[iggymcfrack]

The comparison was to Kobe for the runoff vote. Whether you ding West for era relative to Kobe. Not relative to players who are getting drafted in the 2020s. Unless there's some sort of hot Jerry West vs. Jalen Green debate I've been missing?

People are talking about modernism most of the time with these type of comparisons and I don’t think anyone with a brain doubts how Kobe translates today lol. Kobes era was probably the most difficult era in an absolute sense for wings to score anyway so this does not help the argument at all lol

Don't you think that's incredibly inconsistent?

You rave about Kobe era being incredibly difficult, but he played against archaic defensive systems against slow footed bigs and less talented perimeter defenders. He doesn't have a reliable modern three point line, he never proved himself as a spread P&R ball-handler, he isn't a physical freak...

You think West would be useless in 2020s, but I don't think it's a given that time machined 2006 Kobe would be anything special. It just seems that you have a nostalgia for Kobe times and none of that to West of course. If we start to analyze Kobe highlights like you did with West, you'll realize that perimeter defense wasn't close to what it is now back then either.

This is an excellent post. Kobe did have a really inconsistent 3-pointer. I don’t think he really had the range of West. I do think he’d translate well to the modern era because if he grew up worshipping LeBron instead of MJ, he would have played a much less selfish game, but that’s a hypothetical bridge too far to actually give someone credit for.