Peak: Kobe vs. Garnett

[ardee]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QWdsVQN_BE[/youtube]

Spurs 72, Shaq and Kobe 71

Almost....

Man, when those two both had it going on...

Spurs 35 rebounds, Shaqobe 26.

Spurs 12 assists, Shaqobe 11.

Damn.

[rocopc]

KG all day, every day and all year!!! no contest here

[G35]

I prefer the younger, energetic, to the more calculated, post-up Kobe. When Kobe had the legs to blow by anyone that opened his game so much. People judge Kobe's career on what he did post Shaq but I think pre-2007 Kobe was his when he was at best. I don't care what the stats say, I think afro Kobe could take bald Kobe......

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

[ardee]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

Yeah obviously prime Kobe '01-'09 wipes the floor with prime KG '00-'08.

Peak refers to the single best season in that designated prime. Question is whether peak KG ('03 or '04) was better, or peak Kobe ('01, '03, '06, '07, '08 or '09 ) was better.

Personally I go '08 Kobe, and I do think he brought more to the table then '04 KG without taking what Garnett did off it.

I would be interested in your opinion on that question because you and semi-sentient are probably the most knowledgeable Kobe fans on the board.

[WhateverBro]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

What exactly dont you believe about peaks?

And what does Garnetts level of play has anything with his teams not making the playoffs three straight year? Was he a better player in 08 then lets say 2005?

[JordansBulls]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

What exactly dont you believe about peaks?

And what does Garnetts level of play has anything with his teams not making the playoffs three straight year? Was he a better player in 08 then lets say 2005?

Well in 2008 the squad was totally different. He joined 2 other hall of famers. But truth be told the 2005 should have made the playoffs. It was the same team from 2004 that was the top seed.

[NO-KG-AI]

I prefer the younger, energetic, to the more calculated, post-up Kobe. When Kobe had the legs to blow by anyone that opened his game so much. People judge Kobe's career on what he did post Shaq but I think pre-2007 Kobe was his when he was at best. I don't care what the stats say, I think afro Kobe could take bald Kobe......

This is why I get frustrated with Kobe Vs. whoever peak arguments. The whole ring argument gets tossed about, but I still feel like his true peak was somewhere between Shaq leaving, and before he won the second two titles.

Frobe had to adjust to Shaq leaving and had a rough year immediately after, but then his skillset and his athleticism high points had their best overlap seasons immediately after. He wasn't quite Frobe in athletic terms, but he was close enough, and could sustain high level of productivity for large stretches.

Anyway, I don't think 3peat Kobe or 2peat Kobe are his peak, so I dunno why the ring argument is getting brought up at all. Likewise, KG's ring wasn't close to his peak level of play either.

TLDR; I hate ring arguments on RealGM.

[therealbig3]

To me, the most impressive thing about Kobe is that ridiculous consistency. He has quite a few years that you could argue as his peak, not too many players can say that. Most people agree that KG's peak was 04, some would argue 03. But it's definitely between those two years.

Kobe's could legitimately be 01, 03, 06, 07, or 08. And his 09 and 10 seasons are pretty much up there as well. With that said, this is still clearly KG for me, because I don't see how any of those seasons from Kobe match up to what KG did in 03 and 04, but I do have to give Kobe props for his remarkable consistency.

[drza]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

Yeah obviously prime Kobe '01-'09 wipes the floor with prime KG '00-'08.

Peak refers to the single best season in that designated prime. Question is whether peak KG ('03 or '04) was better, or peak Kobe ('01, '03, '06, '07, '08 or '09 ) was better.

Personally I go '08 Kobe, and I do think he brought more to the table then '04 KG without taking what Garnett did off it.

I would be interested in your opinion on that question because you and semi-sentient are probably the most knowledgeable Kobe fans on the board.

The two underlined statements seem as though they should be challenged. I'd argue that Garnett was better than Kobe in at least 6 of the years of shared prime that you list. At the worst, I don't see how anything is "obvious" or wiping the floor in Kobe's favor.

And then you say that Kobe '08 brought more to the table than KG in '04 without taking as much off the table...I'd like more detail about that stance. You could make the legitimate argument that Garnett was both the best offensive and the best defensive player in the NBA in 2004. Maybe you don't think that he was the best on either end, but he was clearly strongly in the argument for both. Kobe in '08 wasn't. What exactly was KG "taking off the table" that Kobe was leaving on? And KG in '04 led the NBA in points, rebounds, PER, win shares and every +/- category that there is...it's hard to bring much more to the table than that.

[ardee]

I don't believe in "peaks". There's a "prime" of which Kobe's span from 2001-2009, though he's been damn good this year too.

I don't see how anyone can take Prime KG who missed the playoffs 3 straight years, and was doing no better than Love is now with a crap roster during his "peak".

Yeah obviously prime Kobe '01-'09 wipes the floor with prime KG '00-'08.

Peak refers to the single best season in that designated prime. Question is whether peak KG ('03 or '04) was better, or peak Kobe ('01, '03, '06, '07, '08 or '09 ) was better.

Personally I go '08 Kobe, and I do think he brought more to the table then '04 KG without taking what Garnett did off it.

I would be interested in your opinion on that question because you and semi-sentient are probably the most knowledgeable Kobe fans on the board.

The two underlined statements seem as though they should be challenged. I'd argue that Garnett was better than Kobe in at least 6 of the years of shared prime that you list. At the worst, I don't see how anything is "obvious" or wiping the floor in Kobe's favor.

And then you say that Kobe '08 brought more to the table than KG in '04 without taking as much off the table...I'd like more detail about that stance. You could make the legitimate argument that Garnett was both the best offensive and the best defensive player in the NBA in 2004. Maybe you don't think that he was the best on either end, but he was clearly strongly in the argument for both. Kobe in '08 wasn't. What exactly was KG "taking off the table" that Kobe was leaving on? And KG in '04 led the NBA in points, rebounds, PER, win shares and every +/- category that there is...it's hard to bring much more to the table than that.

On prime:

'00: The regular season, Garnett was obviously a lot better. But it was a pretty poor Playoffs shooting wise for him. Now I know he did a hell of a lot else for his team, but if you've got a 29 USG, you need to shoot better then 38.5%. Meanwhile Kobe came up whenever he needed to between the Portland series and helped hold Miller to 41% shooting in the Finals. This is Garnett but the gap is not AS big as people make it out to be... Neither was truly in their prime.

'01: Kobe has one of the best Playoff runs in recent memory and a great regular season as well. KG has a decent 4 game series against the Spurs, and he was a great defender by now, but remember, this is one of Kobe's best defensive years as well, and he could score at will against elite defenders whenever he was needed to. Give this to Kobe.

'02: Hard year to break down. Garnett has the better regular season, and Kobe the better Playoffs again. I know Garnett had 24-19-5 but listen, this was 3 freaking games, and he was burned by Nowitzki that year, badly, to the tune of 33-16-5 on I believe 70+% TS. Garnett himself only shot 43% from the field, and this is not a very good defensive Mavs team. Obviously he IS an elite defender but I think he should have done a better job on Nowitzki. Meanwhile, Kobe sunk the Spurs while Shaq had an off series, then came up big against the Kings and had the most efficient Finals of his career. I go Kobe without having to worry too much about it.

'03: Definitely the closest year. I'm honestly going to just call this a tie. Kobe was definitely the better offensive player by a good margin and the same for KG as a defender. I personally value great offense to great defense, and I know KG will not be able to carry a team defensively like Kobe can offensively (as he proved in '06 and '07), considering the Wolves were always a very average defensive team when KG's supporting cast was as bad as Kobe's. But it's too close to really go either way, that's why I'm calling it a tie.

'04-'05: KG has it, no argument from me, ridiculous couple of years.

'06-'07: Obviously this is Kobe. Both had awful supporting casts, but only one of them succeeded to stay relevant. Yet, with both having awful team-mates, Kobe led his team to a top 7 offense both years, while the Wolves had a 28 ranked offense in '06 and 25th in '07. So KG really wasn't comparable in terms of offense at all. On defense, he still dragged them to a 10th rank in '06 but dropped off completely in '07. In any case, Kobe was historic in both years and KG wasn't even good enough to take an equally bad supporting cast to the POs, so it's a no-brainer.

'08: Probably the only year these two go head to head for the no. 1. I go Kobe, will expand later.

'09: Again, Kobe, considering Garnett missed over half the season it's not an argument.

So from '00-'09, in my opinion it's 6-3-1 in Kobe's favor, 1 being the tie.

I'll post again about the peak, I probably was a bit extreme in the way I worded it but I do feel Kobe is slightly better.