RealGM Top 100 List #11

[MacGill]

Going back to edit my original post for vote page 16

[therealbig3]

From what I understand of RAPM, it only measures how well the player did in the role that he played in. So eccentric results such as Amir Johnson being better than Shaq or KG better than Wade in 09 only says that Amir Johnson does a better job at his role of hustle big than Shaq did at his role of first option or that KG was better at his limited role of defensive quarterback than Wade was at his huge role.

It doesn't mean that certain players (like KG over Wade) are better than others in a vacuum. RAPM depends a lot on what role you play. It should only be used to compare players with similar responsibilities, such as Wade and LeBron in 09 or Shaq and Duncan and any other such similar roles.

Now this could be completely wrong because I'm not an expert in RAPM. So someone more informed please correct me if this is all wrong.

Well, when they were both 1st options on bad teams (similar role), Garnett was outproducing Kobe 2/3 years in RAPM, and they were pretty close in the one year Kobe was higher.

05 KG: +4.4
05 Kobe: +0.7

06 KG: +4.4
06 Kobe: +4.8

07 KG: +7.0
07 Kobe: +5.5

As for KG going to Boston and playing a different role than Kobe, that's fine...but when it keeps happening consistently, my thought process is: maybe there's something about being a defensive anchor that plays a more complementary role on offense that is inherently more conducive to exerting a high impact than a volume scorer on the wing that's more or less neutral defensively?

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

Yeah but timeout -- are you saying that a 19-10-3 +0% TS player can't be better than a 34-6-5 +3% TS player?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the other guy is Bill Russell on defense, no, he can't.

Though if you can come up with an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Bernard King:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo (2013):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin (1980):
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton (1978):
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005):
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008):
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens (1973):
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

Heh, it seems volume scorers, no matter how well they play can't catch a break sometimes…

(And I know you didn't specifically say they had bad seasons, although i did catch the "yikes that's too high" comment before you edited it out)

[Texas Chuck]

my thought process is: maybe there's something about being a defensive anchor that plays a more complementary role on offense that is inherently more conducive to exerting a high impact than a volume scorer on the wing that's more or less neutral defensively?

On that note, did you vote Russell ahead of Mike? Now Mike isnt exactly neutral, but I'd say the ratio of impact is probably similar to KG/Kobe.


edit: I was genuinely curious and so looked it up. Some of your comments in thread #1 seem interesting in light of the statement made above. Seems like you're fairly flexible on the stance quoted above which I think is a good thing. I definitely disagree with the notion that a certain style player is always more valuable than a different style and we should look at them individually which clearly you agree with despite the above.

[therealbig3]

my thought process is: maybe there's something about being a defensive anchor that plays a more complementary role on offense that is inherently more conducive to exerting a high impact than a volume scorer on the wing that's more or less neutral defensively?

On that note, did you vote Russell ahead of Mike? Now Mike isnt exactly neutral, but I'd say the ratio of impact is probably similar to KG/Kobe.

I did not, but Jordan was a bit of an aberration when it came to the volume scoring wing, because he was better than anyone else at it, and his decision-making is generally very underrated anyway.

Also, as you probably remember, I was skeptical of Russell, because of the context of his era.

[therealbig3]

edit: I was genuinely curious and so looked it up. Some of your comments in thread #1 seem interesting in light of the statement made above. Seems like you're fairly flexible on the stance quoted above which I think is a good thing. I definitely disagree with the notion that a certain style player is always more valuable than a different style and we should look at them individually which clearly you agree with despite the above.

Which is why I'm referring to it as a possibility ("maybe there's something about being a defensive anchor that plays a more complementary role on offense that is inherently more conducive to exerting a high impact than a volume scorer on the wing that's more or less neutral defensively?"). I'm not sure, but the numbers definitely have me thinking about it.

But absolutely, each case is different, and you can't automatically conclude that it's the same every time. Sometimes, you have cases like Jordan, and Bird, and Magic, and LeBron, who are so great offensively, that they push past what the norm might be. I don't consider Kobe on that level offensively, and as I've mentioned, I don't really think he does much defensively outside of playing good man defense. That's useful in its own way, but in the concept of team defense, it really doesn't push the needle much imho.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't want to get involved in what I would consider "bickering" that seems to be taking over now that each spot has a larger number of contenders.

I will say, in reference to the discussion about changing minds, that there are some very smart people with a lot of information on players that I have never seen. And unfortunately, now every time i go to write a post with my vote, i question my decision. I fear i have missed something or don't have enough support to validate the different points i am trying to make.

In reality, I want to put my vote in but don't feel like I will add anything to the discussion. But I also don't want to resign from this project, because then I will lose my motivation to stay on top of the discussions and will stop learning.

I was going to vote for Oscar. But finding it hard to not vote KG. I am going to try and hopefully will be confident enough to hit submit before #11 voting ends.

Don't worry so much my friend!

You're doing the best you can. You have your understanding of things. It warrants it's own spot amongst the others in this project.

Don't be afraid of putting yourself out there and having someone prove you wrong, that will only mean you learn something and you'll be wiser than you were before.

Don't be afraid of putting yourself out there and having someone say something you don't understand, be honest and ask for clarification, and if in the end you still don't understand just say so. It's not simply your right to have an opinion, it's a fact that it exists, and there's no way to outsource it here. You can't say "I vote for Player X because Bob thinks that and I don't understand his arguments well enough to refute them". The fact you can't refute them just means you have stuff you can learn, and this isn't your job so no one has any right to demand you learn them on a deadline.

Don't be afraid of putting yourself out there and having someone mock you, because those who do aren't respected here, and any way that's why we have a moderation system.

So stick with it. Say how you see things, and just stay humble & curious.

Cheers

[ardee]

Or Amir Johnson being better than Shaq for the millennium.

Or KG being better than Wade in 2009.

Or Manu being comparable to Kobe.

Or Tony Parker being a better defender in 2013.

There's no way to explain these results but no one bothers to even consider that RAPM is really a pretty strange thing to go by.

Are you saying its a bad thing if a stat had Tony Parker with more impact defensively than 2013 Kobe? It was obvious to anyone who was watching the games or stats that Kobe had awful defensive impact that season. Very comparable to Harden that year. He was called out multiple times for it. He was a big reason why they were they 20th on defense. The Lakers even played much better with Nash on the court than Kobe.

I meant 2013 LeBron.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ardee]

Yeah but timeout -- are you saying that a 19-10-3 +0% TS player can't be better than a 34-6-5 +3% TS player?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the other guy is Bill Russell on defense, no, he can't.

Though if you can come up with an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Bernard King:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo (2013):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin (1980):
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton (1978):
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005):
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008):
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens (1973):
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

Walton, Duncan and 2008 KG are among the best defensive players of the post merger era. So moot point.

Fwiw though, I think Bernard at least is absolutely comparable to them, if this is 1984 King we're talking about. Beast of a player.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Doctor MJ]

I have the weird feeling that this "RAPM drama" thing would not have happened if Kobe was voted #10.

Yes and no.

Yes, because having KG vs Kobe as primary antagonist really brings things to a head.
No, because this was already a thing, and this won't be the last we see of it by any means.

In the end, new stats are causing some people to really change the way they look at things, and so that's going to cause others to be frustrated or threatened by the change. It's natural, I just hope we can get to a certain point where this talk of methods settles down and people can just say they aren't convinced by something rather than escalating.

[trex_8063]

Was wanting to do a bit of a comparison with (eerily) what I've started to call the "KKK" in my head (Kobe, Karl, Kevin), but now really have to rush it; hope it's remotely coherent. Going to break it into some components of comparison (basically starting small, and then backing out to a big/holistic look). This is largely just me trying to organize my thoughts to better compare, fwiw.....

PEAK
Pretty clearly KG is #1 here; doubt many people disagree, and I certainly can't come up with a reasonable argument for either of the others over KG. I have a hard time deciding who peaked higher between Kobe and Malone, though; they seem awfully close. We can go into breaking them down as players (so and so was better at this, so and so was better at this....), but I may just leave it at that for now in order to move on before time runs out on this thread; I think it's probably splitting hairs anyway.
1. Garnett
2-3. Kobe/Karl

PRIME
fyi, Longevity/durability/consistency is a big deal to me, and I'm simply going to incorporate it directly into my assessment of prime and peri-prime years. That's why I am listing the years/games played within prime (and peri-prime below), as that factors into how I rank them in these components. If, for example, I'm comparing Player A and Player B, and I conclude that Player A's avg level of play in his prime is marginally better than Player B's......but Player B has 14 years of prime vs. just 10 for Player A--->I would rank Player B's prime as slightly better.
Highlighting in green the things they rank 1st of the three in, red the things they rank 3rd of three in......
Kobe Bryant ('00-'10--->11 seasons, 821 rs games)
RS: 28.1 ppg/5.8 rpg/5.2 apg/1.7 spg/0.5 bpg on .558 TS% with 3.1 topg
24.4 PER, .197 WS/48 on 39.4 mpg; 113 ORtg/105 DRtg, 132.7 total WS
Playoffs (170 games): 27.8 ppg/5.5 rpg/5.2 apg/1.5 spg/0.7 bpg on .545 TS% with 3.1 topg
23.0 PER, .171 WS/48 on 42.0 mpg; 111 ORtg/106 DRtg, 25.4 total WS

Karl Malone ('89-'00--->12 seasons, 947 games)
RS: 27.2 ppg/10.6 rpg/3.6 apg/1.4 spg/0.9 bpg on .592 TS% with 3.0 topg
25.9 PER, .236 WS/48 on 38.1 mpg; 116 ORtg/101 DRtg, 177.4 total WS
Playoffs (138 games): 26.7 ppg/11.3 rpg/3.3 apg/1.3 spg/0.8 bpg on .534 TS% with 2.8 topg
23.2 PER, .166 WS/48 on 41.4 mpg; 109 ORtg/103 DRtg, 19.8 total WS

Kevin Garnett ('00-'08--->9 seasons, 712 games)
RS: 22.1 ppg/12.4 rpg/4.9 apg/1.4 spg/1.6 bpg on .554 TS% with 2.9 topg
25.7 PER, .217 WS/48 on 38.7 mpg; 112 ORtg/98 DRtg, 124.6 total WS
Playoffs (61 games): 22.3 ppg/12.8 rpg/4.5 apg/1.4 spg/1.5 bpg on .525 TS% with 2.9 topg
23.9 PER, .175 WS/48 on 41.0 mpg; 107 ORtg/99 DRtg, 9.1 total WS

Don't have complete RAPM data for Malone, though indications from the few years that we DO have for him indicate that he'd probably be fairly comparable to Kobe. Kevin Garnett clearly going to come out #1 in RAPM stats (but just not willing to put all of my eggs in that one basket, Doc; sorry).

Overall, I'm still considering how I'd rank these primes to each other.


PRIME/NEAR-PRIME COMBINED
I like to consider a more complete picture of their careers, because they've all had multiple years that aren't really "prime" but nor are just role players, or even "merely good" players; they are still excellent players in these seasons. KG in particular, has SEVERAL excellent though non-prime years......
Kobe Bryant ('00-'13--->14 seasons, 1039 games)
RS: 27.8 ppg/5.7 rpg/5.2 apg/1.6 spg/0.5 bpg on .556 TS% with 3.2 topg
24.1 PER, .190 WS/48 in 38.8 mpg; 112 ORtg/105 DRtg, 160.1 total WS
Playoffs (192 games): 27.7 ppg/5.4 rpg/5.1 apg/1.5 spg/0.6 bpg on .543 TS% with 3.1 topg
23.0 PER, .166 WS/48 in 41.5 mpg; 110 ORtg/106 DRtg, 27.5 total WS

Karl Malone (16 seasons, 1271 games)
RS: 26.3 ppg/10.3 rpg/3.7 apg/1.4 spg/0.8 bpg on .583 TS% with 3.1 topg
24.9 PER, .221 WS/48 in 37.9 mpg; 114 ORtg/101 DRtg, 221.5 total WS
Playoffs (163 games): 26.6 ppg/11.0 rpg/3.2 apg/1.3 spg/0.8 bpg on .530 TS% with 2.9 topg
22.3 PER, .151 WS/48 in 41.5 mpg; 107 ORtg/103 DRtg, 21.2 total WS

Kevin Garnett (16 seasons, 1166 games)
RS: 19.8 ppg/10.9 rpg/4.2 apg/1.3 spg/1.4 bpg on .550 TS% with 2.4 topg
23.9 PER, .198 WS/48 in 36.5 mpg; 111 ORtg/98 DRtg, 175.5 total WS
Playoffs (128 games): 19.3 ppg/11.2 rpg/3.5 apg/1.3 spg/1.4 bpg on .524 TS% with 2.5 topg
21.4 PER, .153 WS/48 in 38.3 mpg; 104 ORtg/98 DRtg, 15.7 total WS

And again, RAPM would favor Kevin Garnett.

Still unsure how I'd rank them in this broader look.


Other more minor considerations for me:
Team Success
Some of this is worked into above evaluations (by making use of things like WS and WS/48). I'd posted earlier expressing I think we need to be cautious about trying to write luck (and what actually happened) out of the equation entirely. So I am going to make simple and direct mention of team success over their respective careers, knowing that each of them contributed in no small degree to their respective team's success.
We have some indications that Garnett may have contributed MORE to his team success than the other two, and I acknowledge that. But nonetheless do wish to make note of who actually had the "winning-est" career. The ranking would have to go:

1. Kobe
2. Malone
3. Garnett


Statistical Footprint
While it's a sort of invented term someone here coined, I don't think I really need to explain what it means. This is a relevant factor to me, albeit a somewhat small one.
Considering both rs and playoff footprint, it's kinda hard to say who should rank #1. By rs alone, it's pretty easily Malone; add in post-season and Kobe has a case, too. Roughly it's:

1-2. Kobe/Malone
3. Garnett (although he's certainly not far behind)


Also wanted to comment on acrossthecourt's long post about KG.....
fwiw, this was an excellent post. Only part I was skeptical of is quoted below. This one section seemed a bit disingenuous to me (reasons highlighted in blue):

Myth 7: Garnett's teammates in 2006 or 2005 were comparable to Duncan in the early 00's

See myth 6 or ...

Tony Parker Not until '02, and not even remotely like the Parker we know today until '05
Bruce Bowen
Stephen Jackson 2 years, both pre-prime or at least early prime, and one of which he mostly missed or was benched.
Malik Rose
David Robinson Post-prime and/or twilight years.
Manu Ginobili Not until '03, and not the star-level Ginobili until '05.
Steve Smith Post-prime (age 32-33).
Steve Kerr Not that he was EVER a stud, but post-prime (age 33+).

versus...

Trenton Hassell
Marko Jaric
Wally Szczerbiak
Ricky Davis
Rashad McCants
Eddie Griffin
Marcus Banks
Mark Blount

So anyway, not saying KG had an equal supporting cast in Minny during the years specified; but it's not the large gap that it appears you're trying to imply with name recognition (look: Parker and Ginobili!). Both Parker and Ginobili weren't there until at least 2-3 years into the "early 00's", and weren't particularly noteworthy players until AFTER the "early 00's". And everyone else listed except for Bowen and Rose was either pre-prime or post-prime/twilight.

[Clyde Frazier]

Have to get a little stream of consciousness off my chest before i submit my vote…

The on / off, in / out and RAPM figures obviously make a great case for garnett here.  I know looking at him and just saying "he isn't a great primary scoring option, so we can't rank him this high" isn't a strong statement. 

And yes, if he came up through a different organization, maybe he would've had a teammate to shoulder the scoring load.  However, there's no guarantee that player comes along, and that's where I wonder about garnett's real value. He was relied on to be the 1st option, and I never felt he was comfortable in that role, although he performed to the best of his ability.

I'd consider the majority of the top 20 to be the faces of their franchise as winners, and garnett eventually had his greatest impact as the defensive anchor of a team with a solid 1st option in pierce. (And yes, i'm aware the #s show garnett had a larger impact than pierce in 08.)

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that in the right situation, garnett's impact can be felt much larger than in others. With the way player movement is today, maybe if he entered the league later he would've ended up in a better situation earlier.

I'm just not ready to concede that garnett is essentially the modern day russell, and got a tough break along the way.

When I look at him in contrast to Kobe, who has the gaudy #s, accolades and championships to boot, it has me thinking hard about who i really value as the better player. Having watched both of their careers from the start, i've developed strong feelings about these guys over the years. I'm sure many of you can relate to that. At this point, i just need to further evaluate them as i'm basically split between the two.

[ardee]

Kobe doesn't get voted in, I think I might just be a bit relieved if Garnett does, if only so that such a problematic player gets of the board and discussion becomes less emotional.

Oh, and also so RAPM can die a fiery death (I guarantee it won't be used 25% as much after he gets in).

I think I'm just going to stay out of the rest of the discussion until Garnett gets voted in, since the conversation is frustrating me more and more and I'm liable to say something stupid.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[trex_8063]

I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote for Kobe Bryant for reasons implied above:
While he may have the lowest peak of the three guys I've primarily been considering, his prime is pretty comparable (due to excellent longevity and consistency of overall performance); and the more broad look (including years like '11 thru '13) makes him look even more comparable to Malone.

His playoff successes are the most numerous; his playoff production and efficiency appears to (on avg) hold the most steady, and he's arguably got the biggest statistical footprint.

It's still super-close for me, but this is the vote I'm going to cast.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Kevin Garnett



Why do I continue to be convinced of Garnett? I'll list the bullets:

1. 2008 Boston Celtics. Immediate impact; all time level defensive team that demonstrably relied on Garnett; portability most evident from a complete transformation of his role into what was still an MVP level year.

You act like Garnett's 08 title run was some carry job or that it was on a legendary level. He had Pierce, and Ray Allen at the end of their primes, young Rondo, and then some very good defenders and role players in Tony Allen, Posey, Pj Brown, Glenn Davis, Casell, Eddie House etc. Then you have Doc as the head coach with Tibbs to help with the defensive schemes. With all the talent they had and coaching they should've won it and more easily than they did, getting took to 7 by the 40 win hawks and Cavs. Not trying to dismiss him he was great and all but i think you glorify his run that year too much. There was easily 15-20 players who have had better title runs. His run was not "MVP" level.

[therealbig3]

Have to get a little stream of consciousness off my chest before i submit my vote…

The on / off, in / out and RAPM figures obviously make a great case for garnett here.  I know looking at him and just saying "he isn't a great primary scoring option, so we can't rank him this high" isn't a strong statement. 

And yes, if he came up through a different organization, maybe he would've had a teammate to shoulder the scoring load.  However, there's no guarantee that player comes along, and that's where I wonder about garnett's real value. He was relied on to be the 1st option, and I never felt he was comfortable in that role, although he performed to the best of his ability.

I'd consider the majority of the top 20 to be the faces of their franchise as winners, and garnett eventually had his greatest impact as the defensive anchor of a team with a solid 1st option in pierce. (And yes, i'm aware the #s show garnett had a larger impact than pierce in 08.)

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that in the right situation, garnett's impact can be felt much larger than in others. With the way player movement is today, maybe if he entered the league later he would've ended up in a better situation earlier.

I'm just not ready to concede that garnett is essentially the modern day russell, and got a tough break along the way.

When I look at him in contrast to Kobe, who has the gaudy #s, accolades and championships to boot, it has me thinking hard about who i really value as the better player. Having watched both of their careers from the start, i've developed strong feelings about these guys over the years. I'm sure many of you can relate to that. At this point, i just need to further evaluate them as i'm basically split between the two.

IIRC, you're a Dirk Nowitzki fan. How do you feel about Dirk vs KG, and Dirk vs Kobe?

[rich316]

My vote for #11: Kevin Garnett.

The comparison between Kobe and Garnett resonates for me in their approach to basketball as a team game. Both players were maniacal competitors, both had primes that spanned almost the exact same years, and both were stuck on bad teams for their true peaks. Kobe's peak was bracketed by strong teams, and Garnett only got his strong team post-peak.

Offensively, KG wasn't a complete package. He could do many things well, but aside from mid-range jumpers, he wasn't elite at anything. Across his career, however, he demonstrated that he would adjust his offensive game to whatever the team needed, and use his strengths as well as he could. When Minny needed him to be a creator and centerpiece, he did that very capably, using his high-post offense to score and distribute in an effective way. When Boston needed him to be a floor-spacer and finisher, he did that extremely well.

Kobe on offense was always treading the line between me-first and team-first. Me-first wins nothing, as has been demonstrated time and again in NBA history. It's fine when you are leading Smush and the gang to 46 wins to be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options, but when you are operating in the triangle with the best big-man talent in the game, it behooves you to respect the system. He sometimes did, and his talent showed its worth when he did so. When he didn't, it could cause huge problems, as in 2013 and in 2004. For all the somewhat-valid backlash against the "efficiency forever!!" crowd, the reason that crowd became so strident is because for a long time, which happened to correspond to Kobe's prime, there seemed to be a deficit of understanding that missed shots are still missed shots, even if fadeaways look really cool when they go in.

As defenders and rebounders, there isn't much to say, other than I don't think the gap between the two players on offense is enough to make up the gap in those facets.

[therealbig3]

Kobe doesn't get voted in, I think I might just be a bit relieved if Garnett does, if only so that such a problematic player gets of the board and discussion becomes less emotional.

Oh, and also so RAPM can die a fiery death (I guarantee it won't be used 25% as much after he gets in).

I think I'm just going to stay out of the rest of the discussion until Garnett gets voted in, since the conversation is frustrating me more and more and I'm liable to say something stupid.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

There are plenty of modern players that will be discussed in this project that played during the RAPM era. I know it'll be a part of my analysis when it comes to guys like Dirk, Manu, and Nash.

[batmana]

My vote here will go to Kobe Bryant.

He has the individual accolades as well as the rings (team success); he was a volume scorer who put up the best scoring season since Jordan's retirement; he was truly the best in trying to model his game after Jordan's and being a lesser version of Jordan is actually quite an accomplishment. I feel Kobe beats out the field in his ability to live up to the go-to guy label, with the amount of success that he's had.

I struggled the most trying to separate Kobe and Jerry West (I have no doubt in my own ranking that West and Kobe are above Oscar so he is not in the discussion here). West is a true all-time great who had a tremendous career with dazzling individual performances albeit falling short so many times. From what I've read and learned about the 1960s, I hardly blame him for all the losses to the Celtics who were better coached, deeper and possibly overall superior as a team. In fact, West's heroics have almost transcended his shortcomings (the half-court shot in the 1970s Finals, winning the Finals MVP as part of the losing team while averaging 38 PPG). He was a true icon and is probably the next guy I'd vote for. But the West-Kobe comparisons have long been discussed as both have spent their entire NBA careers for the same franchise - the Lakers. Kobe obviously has more titles, and while he was the 2nd guy for his first 3 rings, he won 2 more as the guy. Kobe's career took him from being the perfect complement to the best big man in the game, from being the best perimeter player in the game, to becoming the centerpiece of his franchise. Despite being the 2nd guy for the 2000-2002 titles, Kobe often took center-stage and showed that he was on his way to becoming a legit 1st option. As I try to evaluate his contributions, I feel that he surpasses West somewhere along the way. Even though I don't want to penalize West for not winning a title in the 60s, I am trying to give Kobe credit for everything he achieved. The fact that there have been so many discussions about Kobe in comparison to Jordan is enough credit to his achievements. Although he falls short in this comparison, that's hardly a knock on him.

Moses Malone has a high peak but Kobe's peak lasted longer, and Moses IMO didn't have quite the same impact throughout his prime. At times he'd look amazing, defeating Kareem and his superior team but at times he'd merely be the best player on a mediocre team; Karl Malone was consistently good but couldn't elevate his game when it mattered the most. Dirk is probably the closest to Kobe out of the remaining players but I feel that Kobe was consistently better than Nowitzki throughout their careers and edges him out here.

I am not as high on Garnett so I'll be brief with the comparison between him and Bryant - Garnett to me is not the ideal franchise player; he may have the well-balanced game (great on defense, very good on offense) but he doesn't have the ability to dominate. He found his success on a very good Celtics team with 2 other equals but I can't give him the credit that others do in relation to his Minnesota teams. I feel that his time in Minnesota shows he is not in that tier of franchise players that you can easily build around. I don't put him in the top tier of defensive anchors and the team defenses in his Minnesota years are a proof of that, and I believe he doesn't belong in a tier where other players consistently achieved more success with comparably mediocre supporting casts.

So back to Kobe - in his long prime he was a guy who could beat a team by himself when his shots were falling but he also had an all-around game; he was for some time a ferocious defender; later on he mostly coasted or picked his spots for turning on his effort on that end but his offense remained his calling card. I value volume scoring a lot and he was one of the best at it. In fact, those Lakers teams had very little scoring outside of Shaq and Kobe and if you tried to replace them with a lesser duo, you'd hardly get similar results.

[Texas Chuck]

I think I'm just going to stay out of the rest of the discussion until Garnett gets voted in, since the conversation is frustrating me more and more and I'm liable to say something stupid.

This feels really unfair to the "KG" guys here. I too have been skeptical about much of the hyperbolic content about KG:

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"
"KG has markedly better longevity than Mailman"
"KG is the most portable superstar ever"
"KG's old man seasons are better than any of of Kobe's"
"KG is better than David Robinson despite a ton of statistical evidence suggesting otherwise based on "style"

And so on. BUT with the exception of one poster with a clear agenda, all the guys supporting KG in the threads have been very cordial and respectful in how they relate to those of us not quite on the bandwagon yet. I have a really hard time blaming them for the tenor of the conversation. A really hard time.

I get you are a Kobe guy. And I get RAPM doesnt paint Kobe in the glowing light as it does KG and that because the KG crowd and the RAPM crowd tend to be one and the same(for obvious reasons) it gets frustrating when so many of their counter arguments keep going back to an area where your guy doesnt shine. But instead of getting mad at them for having a different perspective speak to the rest of us who are open to a broader discussion.