Lowest reasonable ranking for Kobe Bryant?

[LAL1947]

Highest you could have him is about 11, lowest... hmm, maybe 20?

So I guess 25 is the lowest you could reasonably have him in about 5 years time, once Giannis and Harden's career longevity is more settled.

While they were in their primes and playing against each other... Shaq > Kobe > Timmy.

So if the highest you can have Kobe is 11, then the highest you can have Timmy is 12.

If you are actually desperate enough to say 25th is the lowest you can go for Kobe, then Timmy can go further down to 26... or beyond.

The Spurs never repeated because dear ole Timmy was not as good as Shaq or Kobe, it's really as simple as that.

[DWhiteMamba]

Highest you could have him is about 11, lowest... hmm, maybe 20?

So I guess 25 is the lowest you could reasonably have him in about 5 years time, once Giannis and Harden's career longevity is more settled.

While they were in their primes and playing against each other... Shaq > Kobe > Timmy.

So if the highest you can have Kobe is 11, then the highest you can have Timmy is 12.

If you are actually desperate enough to say 25th is the lowest you can go for Kobe, then Timmy can go further down to 26... or beyond.

The Spurs never repeated because dear ole Timmy was not as good as Shaq or Kobe, it's really as simple as that. Shaq was more devastating... and Kobe had more individual brilliance thus was able to do more with less. In that generation, Timmy was the 3rd best player after those 2. Putting Duncan over Kobe can only be the result of mental gymnastics and a re-writing of history.

I mean logic disagrees with you, no matter how many times you say it, and pretty much every meaningful statistical sample disagrees with you too. Duncan was just a more impactful player than Kobe, which is why he ranks where he does on these forums; much higher than Kobe.

[DWhiteMamba]

Some of the replies in this thread are laughable, at best. Especially from certain Spuds fans, who are exercising a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics in this thread (and other threads) to lessen Kobe's legacy and seem to be forgetting the absolute thrashings that the Lakers laid on the Spurs in 2000-01 and 2001-02, just so they can try to put Duncan over him. The same Tim Duncan who had no answer to the Lakers for 3 whole years... and whose team got swept 4-0 despite being the #1 seeded team in the whole NBA... and whose team lost games by 39 points, where Timmy only scored 9 points... who never won a repeat title despite being on so many stacked teams... and all of this happened thanks to Kobe growing up, which is why the hate exists. Before that, the Spurs felt they could handle Shaq and complete their own 3-peat, especially after their triumph in 1998-99. I feel the context of all this should be remembered when it comes to evaluating what certain fans say and why. There is a whole world out there that still remembers those beat downs though... and especially other players, who give Kobe his rightful due... just as they do to Tim Duncan, who was also a great player in his own right but he wasn't better than Kobe. So this effort isn't just laughable, it's futile.

There are some even claiming that Giannis went up against tougher competition in the 2020-21 playoffs... how soon we forget the Trailblazers of old... the Kings with Chris Webber & Co... the Mavericks... or even the Spurs themselves, with the great Timmy, no less. Make up your minds... is Timmy a GOAT candidate... or were the Spurs teams of 1999-02 worse than the teams Giannis faced in this playoffs... and if they were worse, then how is dear ole Timmy a GOAT candiate? You can't have it both ways, lol.

You talk like the Lakers v.s the Spurs was Duncan v.s Kobe mono e mono. Kobe wasn't even the best player on his team until Shaq left. He was Shaq's robin.

[LAL1947]

Highest you could have him is about 11, lowest... hmm, maybe 20?

So I guess 25 is the lowest you could reasonably have him in about 5 years time, once Giannis and Harden's career longevity is more settled.

While they were in their primes and playing against each other... Shaq > Kobe > Timmy.

So if the highest you can have Kobe is 11, then the highest you can have Timmy is 12.

If you are actually desperate enough to say 25th is the lowest you can go for Kobe, then Timmy can go further down to 26... or beyond.

The Spurs never repeated because dear ole Timmy was not as good as Shaq or Kobe, it's really as simple as that. Shaq was more devastating... and Kobe had more individual brilliance thus was able to do more with less. In that generation, Timmy was the 3rd best player after those 2. Putting Duncan over Kobe can only be the result of mental gymnastics and a re-writing of history.

I mean logic disagrees with you, no matter how many times you say it, and pretty much every meaningful statistical sample disagrees with you too. Duncan was just a more impactful player than Kobe, which is why he ranks where he does on these forums; much higher than Kobe.

Lol, be more accurate in your choice of words. It is not logic that disagrees with me... but YOUR logic that I disagree with... and yet actual NBA players agree with me, players who came before them, players who played with them, and players who came after them too... and other GMs and coaches agree with me... and the titles each won agree with me... and the fact that dear ole Timmy could never repeat agree with me... and Kobe is universally acknowledged as the greater player too, i.e., across the globe!

[DWhiteMamba]

The analysis on his board disagrees with you, and many, many players and coaches and analysts in the NBA world disagree with you too, which is why Kobe only got 1 MVP, and it was something of a lifetime achievement award, and why Kobe's stats and win record as the alpha of his team doesn't support the contention he was better. Like, at all.

Basketball is about how much you impact the game, not how many points you score or how cool you look while playing it. If it was World.B.Free would be considered an all-timer. He isn't, because some stats mean more than others, and some are empty because you were a chucker and a stat padder who didn't play D and was cancerous to winning. Not that Kobe didn't help you win, but nowhere near as much as Duncan.

[LAL1947]

The analysis on his board disagrees with you, and many, many players and coaches and analysts in the NBA world disagree with you too, which is why Kobe only got 1 MVP, and it was something of a lifetime achievement award, and why Kobe's stats and win record as the alpha of his team doesn't support the contention he was better. Like, at all.

Basketball is about how much you impact the game, not how many points you score or how cool you look while playing it. If it was World.B.Free would be considered an all-timer. He isn't, because some stats mean more than others, and some are empty because you were a chucker and a stat padder who didn't play D and was cancerous to winning. Not that Kobe didn't help you win, but nowhere near as much as Duncan.

Kobe a chucker, a stat-padder, didn't play D, cancerous to winning?

Listening to you talk about Kobe is like listening to Isaiah Thomas in his role as an analyst on TV trying to put down Michael Jordan, lol. Tremendous amount of hate in both your hearts. I know you've never forgiven Kobe for dashing your hopes of a 3-peat between 1999-2002 and laying beat-down after beat-down on the Spurs. You also can't get over the fact that he repeated on his own later. Let it go bro. Just like Isaiah, you can too. Acceptance is the first form of recovery. Say it with me... "Kobe > Timmy".

Also, Timmy stole that 2002-03 MVP from Kobe. It really should have gone to Kobe if you look at how he carried that depleted Lakers team in 2002-03... with Shaq acting a fool and being lazy, getting surgery during the season and missing the start of it, and not being happy that Kobe had become better than him... while Timmy had a ton of help from Parker, Ginobli, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Malik Rose, etc. What was it Kobe had... 9 consecutive 40+ games? 16 games of 40+, while Timmy had none? Multiple 50 point games, while Timmy had none? 14 more games playing 40+ minutes than Timmy? Oh wait, dear ole Timmy did have a record number of double-doubles that year, many of which were 10-19 PTS + 10 REBS, whoopee doodah!

[DWhiteMamba]

I literally said Kobe was not those things in the very next sentence. Kobe isn't those things, but we do know stats can be empty, or low calories, and some are less meaningful than others to winning. I don't know what Kobe had to do with the Spurs not repeating, he wasn't even the best player on his own team, and I just hyped the heck out of Shaq who was their best player in another thread. I also find it bemusing that you think we have to treat what players say so seriously, then turn around and dismiss champion and HoFer Isaiah Thomas as an unobjective hater. I actually agree with you, he is, but it's a weird comment coming from you. I guess to you player opinion only matters when it agrees with you.

NB: stop going back and changing the content of your posts in edits too.

[LAL1947]

I literally said Kobe was not those things in the very next sentence. Kobe isn't those things, but we do know stats can be empty, or low calories, and some are less meaningful than others to winning. I don't know what Kobe had to do with the Spurs not repeating, he wasn't even the best player on his own team, and I just hyped the heck out of Shaq who was their best player in another thread. I also find it bemusing that you think we have to treat what players say so seriously, then turn around and dismiss champion and HoFer Isaiah Thomas as an unobjective hater. I actually agree with you, he is, but it's a weird comment coming from you. I guess to you player opinion only matters when it agrees with you.

Empty stats, low calories? I think you seem to have mixed up Kobe with Gilbert Arenas. Now I never missed a Lakers vs Spurs game in that time... but I don't know if you did. There is plenty of whole game footage on YouTube if you'd like to reacquaint yourself with Kobe crapping all over every player on the Spurs on his way to winning rings... and if he was winning rings, how can they be empty stats / low calories?

My point with Isaiah is that people can sometimes be unreasonable due to hatred / dislike. Also, players' opinions don't only matter when they agree with me... but you may need to ask yourself if it is weird that you disagree so greatly with players who played this game at the highest level... and who are able to recognize that showing off skills in a street-ball game or that being an empty stat-padder is something very different to possessing the skills + talent that allow you to literally have your way with the best of the best in the world, like when Kobe used to toy with teams in the NBA and there wasn't a thing anyone could do about it.

There are other instances when I will disagree with players because I'm able to recognize when they aren't being truthful, as I'm sure you will too. For example: if players were to hold up Westbrook's triple-doubles as still being meaningful today... or use them to claim that he's a top 10 player in the league because they're not wanting to give props to another rival they may dislike.

[DWhiteMamba]

Kobe's stats weren't empty, but they sure as heck don't mean as much as Duncan who was a more impactful player and proved it in basically every way. Kobe was lucky he had an alpha like Shaq to make things so easy for him. Things took a downward turn when that dude left, until the team became stacked with talent. Prime Duncan proved he could carry even a bad support cast to a title; see 2003.

Your point with Isaiah is that players opinions are super important and objective, unless they disagree with you and they suddenly are biased haters. Your words, not mine.

[LAL1947]

Kobe's stats weren't empty, but they sure as heck don't mean as much as Duncan who was a more impactful player and proved it in basically every way. Kobe was lucky he had an alpha like Shaq to make things so easy for him. Things took a downward turn when that dude left, until the team became stacked with talent. Prime Duncan proved he could carry even a bad support cast to a title; see 2003.

Your point with Isaiah is that players opinions are super important and objective, unless they disagree with you and they suddenly are biased haters. Your words, not mine.

Nopes. My point is simply that ludicrous opinions can easily be identified... like Isaiah's opinion about MJ... and your opinion about Kobe. At some point, you're going to need to realize that a large portion of how you feel about Timmy comes from how great the Lakers were between 1999-2002 because of Shaq AND Kobe... and the euphoria you felt after finally being able to beat them in 2002-03 (when Shaq pressed the self-destruct button), which is causing you to elevate Timmy over Shaq and/or Kobe... and all while ignoring the impact of Pop, the Spurs FO, and the tremendous depth on the Spurs' winning teams. I feel like you're making me unfairly diss on Timmy to point this out... they were the three best of that generation and yes, Timmy was more efficient... but those two were just simply the better players.

[deadfeather]

It's always arguable between Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Kareem, Shaq and Wilt.

I'd say of those six, I cant argue beyond 2. My heart has him #1. But I can see Bron maybe being 1# as well. It's weird. Because I can see

Kobe
Lebron
Jordan

Or

Lebron
Kobe
Jordan

Or

Kobe
Jordan
Lebron

But not

Lebron
Jordan
Kobe

So the lowest for Kobe I can see is #2. But as I said my heart will always say #1.

[DWhiteMamba]

Cool. And the judge of which opinions are wrong is... your opinion. I'm sorry you are unable to process how people feel without developing a fantastical backstory about why they must disagree with you because their hearts are filled with hate; I suspect you might be doing some projecting there. If I hated the Lakers so much I wouldn't be telling people how good Shaq was when he played for them in another thread. I've rooted for alot of Lakers over the years actually. I can't really say Kobe is one of them, but I'm not alone in that. He's a pretty unlikable guy. I wish my team had someone as good as him right now, but that doesn't make him better than he was; which is a clearly less impactful player than Duncan.

Your views are so obviously not objective I'm not even bothering with much of a reply; stuff like "the Spurs were always super deep post 99" and "Kobe deserved the 2003 MVP" are basically self-rebutting. Kobe fans on here are thinking "with friends like this guy, who needs enemies".

[70sFan]

Kobe over Duncan in 2003 MVP is one of the funniest thing I've read here in a while.

[Stalwart]

I think Tim Duncan was an excellent player, with an excellent career, and worthy of the all the praise he receives. If someone ranks him ahead of Kobe I'm not going to spend much time arguing.

But there is a bit of revisionist history going these days. At no point after about 01 or 02 was there a significant portion of the NBA community calling Tim Duncan a better player than Kobe Bryant.

From the mid to late 2000s Kobe was considered the best player in the league on average.

[70sFan]

I think Tim Duncan was an excellent player, with an excellent career, and worthy of the all the praise he receives. If someone ranks him ahead of Kobe I'm not going to spend much time arguing.

But there is a bit of revisionist history going these days. At no point after about 01 or 02 was there a significant portion of the NBA community calling Tim Duncan a better player than Kobe Bryant.

From the mid to late 2000s Kobe was considered the best player in the league on average.

Well, since you like accolades and "experts" voting, MVP votng:

2001 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 9th
2002 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 5th
2003 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 3rd
2004 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 5th
2005 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: not voted
2006 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 4th
2007 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: 3rd
2008 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 1st

Duncan beat Kobe 5 times out of 8, in most cases clearly so. Kobe's only clear advantage were in 2006 when Duncan was injured and 2008 when he reached the end of his prime.

[DWhiteMamba]

Yeh I wouldn't count 2008, since Duncan wasn't in his prime anymore. So it's 5 out of 7 times to Timmy, who made the all-nba 1st team every one of those years. Duncan was injured in 06, as he points out. Basically Duncan was almost always regarded as better than Kobe, even with the selective criteria of "from 01 onwards", right up until Duncan fell out of his prime in which case sure he wasn't ranked ahead, but I could care less about that since Duncan been one of the top few players since 98.

[Stalwart]

I think Tim Duncan was an excellent player, with an excellent career, and worthy of the all the praise he receives. If someone ranks him ahead of Kobe I'm not going to spend much time arguing.

But there is a bit of revisionist history going these days. At no point after about 01 or 02 was there a significant portion of the NBA community calling Tim Duncan a better player than Kobe Bryant.

From the mid to late 2000s Kobe was considered the best player in the league on average.

Well, since you like accolades and "experts" voting, MVP votng:

2001 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 9th
2002 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 5th
2003 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 3rd
2004 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 5th
2005 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: not voted
2006 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 4th
2007 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: 3rd
2008 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 1st

Duncan beat Kobe 5 times out of 8, in most cases clearly so. Kobe's only clear advantage were in 2006 when Duncan was injured and 2008 when he reached the end of his prime.

MVP = Most valuable player on the best team

MVP =/= Best player

[Dutchball97]

I think Tim Duncan was an excellent player, with an excellent career, and worthy of the all the praise he receives. If someone ranks him ahead of Kobe I'm not going to spend much time arguing.

But there is a bit of revisionist history going these days. At no point after about 01 or 02 was there a significant portion of the NBA community calling Tim Duncan a better player than Kobe Bryant.

From the mid to late 2000s Kobe was considered the best player in the league on average.

Well, since you like accolades and "experts" voting, MVP votng:

2001 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 9th
2002 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 5th
2003 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 3rd
2004 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 5th
2005 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: not voted
2006 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 4th
2007 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: 3rd
2008 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 1st

Duncan beat Kobe 5 times out of 8, in most cases clearly so. Kobe's only clear advantage were in 2006 when Duncan was injured and 2008 when he reached the end of his prime.

MVP = Most valuable player on the best team

MVP =/= Best player

And the goalposts get moved once again. You can just admit you have a Kobe shrine in your bedroom at this point.

[70sFan]

I think Tim Duncan was an excellent player, with an excellent career, and worthy of the all the praise he receives. If someone ranks him ahead of Kobe I'm not going to spend much time arguing.

But there is a bit of revisionist history going these days. At no point after about 01 or 02 was there a significant portion of the NBA community calling Tim Duncan a better player than Kobe Bryant.

From the mid to late 2000s Kobe was considered the best player in the league on average.

Well, since you like accolades and "experts" voting, MVP votng:

2001 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 9th
2002 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 5th
2003 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 3rd
2004 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 5th
2005 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: not voted
2006 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 4th
2007 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: 3rd
2008 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 1st

Duncan beat Kobe 5 times out of 8, in most cases clearly so. Kobe's only clear advantage were in 2006 when Duncan was injured and 2008 when he reached the end of his prime.

MVP = Most valuable player on the best team

MVP =/= Best player

Sorry, I'm probably too dense for that. Once you said that accolades are objective metrics of someone's goodness but now you quickly reject them. Then please, could you show me one evidence of Kobe being better than Duncan in the mid-00s? Maybe I'll understand your criteria better.

[Stalwart]

Well, since you like accolades and "experts" voting, MVP votng:

2001 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 9th
2002 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 5th
2003 - Duncan: 1st, Kobe: 3rd
2004 - Duncan: 2nd, Kobe: 5th
2005 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: not voted
2006 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 4th
2007 - Duncan: 4th, Kobe: 3rd
2008 - Duncan: 8th, Kobe: 1st

Duncan beat Kobe 5 times out of 8, in most cases clearly so. Kobe's only clear advantage were in 2006 when Duncan was injured and 2008 when he reached the end of his prime.

MVP = Most valuable player on the best team

MVP =/= Best player

Sorry, I'm probably too dense for that. Once you said that accolades are objective metrics of someone's goodness but now you quickly reject them. Then please, could you show me one evidence of Kobe being better than Duncan in the mid-00s? Maybe I'll understand your criteria better.

There is no one accolade that determines everything. You have to consider all objective metrics and weigh them all together. Then there is a degree of subjectivity that can't be avoided.

The problem is that you guys dismiss objective metrics entirely.