Why is Kobe, on average, above west and oscar in all time rankings?

[AdagioPace]

It's very, very easy to see why Kobe would be seen as above West and Oscar by the regular bb community(including ex players going back to the 90's). Because even if you look beyond accolades and rings(which puts Kobe ahead of both for the most part) there is also era bias working against Oscar/West on top of recency bias and Kobe probably being the biggest icon between MJ and LeBron. The only way anyone would have Oscar or West ahead is if they grew up watching them or is really dedicated to doing research and has no bias against that era of bb.

In order to appreciate Oscar and West you need to dig a bit deeper than you need for Kareem/Wilt/Russell (who enjoy stories and legends about them). West and Oscar are still alive for now. West is a famous character in californian basketball while Oscar is proto-lebron/westbrook. Someday both will end up like Sam Jones and Bob Cousy and disappear from mainstream media.

in 50 years how many people will remember Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul or Steve Nash?

[dygaction]

It's very, very easy to see why Kobe would be seen as above West and Oscar by the regular bb community(including ex players going back to the 90's). Because even if you look beyond accolades and rings(which puts Kobe ahead of both for the most part) there is also era bias working against Oscar/West on top of recency bias and Kobe probably being the biggest icon between MJ and LeBron. The only way anyone would have Oscar or West ahead is if they grew up watching them or is really dedicated to doing research and has no bias against that era of bb.

No bias against something can be a big bias. The only way anyone would have Oscar or West ahead is if they grew up watching them or is still adamant that modern era is not significantly better than that era of bb.

[Cavsfansince84]

No bias against something can be a big bias. The only way anyone would have Oscar or West ahead is if they grew up watching them or is still adamant that modern era is not significantly better than that era of bb.

Era doesn't have to be a defining way of judging players in an all time sense. A person can believe that the current era is overall much stronger than the 60's yet still not hold that against the players from that era. Just as I'd say that the current era is much stronger than most of the 90's as well.

[Cavsfansince84]

In order to appreciate Oscar and West you need to dig a bit deeper than you need for Kareem/Wilt/Russell (who enjoy stories and legends about them). West and Oscar are still alive for now. West is a famous character in californian basketball while Oscar is proto-lebron/westbrook. Someday both will end up like Sam Jones and Bob Cousy and disappear from mainstream media.

in 50 years how many people will remember Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul or Steve Nash?

For the most part I agree but I'm not really sure how this reply connects to what I wrote. It's sort of reiterating it except for including more recent players in a 50 years from now scenario. Which again, I'd agree with because most bb fans aren't going to bother doing heavy research into players who retired 40+ years prior.

[dygaction]

No bias against something can be a big bias. The only way anyone would have Oscar or West ahead is if they grew up watching them or is still adamant that modern era is not significantly better than that era of bb.

Era doesn't have to be a defining way of judging players in an all time sense. A person can believe that the current era is overall much stronger than the 60's yet still not hold that against the players from that era. Just as I'd say that the current era is much stronger than most of the 90's as well.

That's true, and that's also why LeBron has an argument over MJ, and MJ is ranked higher than Russell in vast majority of people's list.
West or Oscar though, while they can get into intense discussion, you will have to look hard to find any argument for them to over Kobe.
West: 1FMVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Oscar: 1MVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Kobe: 2FMVP, 1MVP, 5rings, 11x 1st team, 2x 2nd team, 2x 3rd team
Kobe was just a better player in a stronger era and achieved so much more in his career. In his 1st team selections, people needed to choose 2 guards from 29/30 teams instead of around a dozen.

[Cavsfansince84]

That's true, and that's also why LeBron has an argument over MJ, and MJ is ranked higher than Russell in vast majority of people's list.
West or Oscar though, while they can get into intense discussion, you will have to look hard to find any argument for them to over Kobe.
West: 1FMVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Oscar: 1MVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Kobe: 2FMVP, 1MVP, 5rings, 11x 1st team, 2x 2nd team, 2x 3rd team
Kobe was just a better player in a stronger era and achieved so much more in his career. In his 1st team selections, people needed to choose 2 guards from 29/30 teams instead of around a dozen.

I don't agree with the bolded but I'd agree they often get put in the same tier if someone said that. I think there are good arguments for having them in whichever order but part of why the West/Oscar arguments hold up is understanding the level of athletes they were(including size/strength/length) and how much of an outlier their efficiency was. In terms of perimeter scorers, they are probably the two biggest outliers of all time while Kobe doesn't really even stand out much in his own era and West has an argument for being a top 5 playoff performer of all time. I don't want to go too much into this though because I've taken part and seen these debates occur way too many times already. If you want to disagree that's fine. I'm not that interested in pursuing it.

[dygaction]

That's true, and that's also why LeBron has an argument over MJ, and MJ is ranked higher than Russell in vast majority of people's list.
West or Oscar though, while they can get into intense discussion, you will have to look hard to find any argument for them to over Kobe.
West: 1FMVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Oscar: 1MVP, 1ring, 10x 1st team, 2x 2nd team
Kobe: 2FMVP, 1MVP, 5rings, 11x 1st team, 2x 2nd team, 2x 3rd team
Kobe was just a better player in a stronger era and achieved so much more in his career. In his 1st team selections, people needed to choose 2 guards from 29/30 teams instead of around a dozen.

I don't agree with the bolded but I'd agree they often get put in the same tier if someone said that. I think there are good arguments for having them in whichever order but part of why the West/Oscar arguments hold up is understanding the level of athletes they were(including size/strength/length) and how much of an outlier their efficiency was. In terms of perimeter scorers, they are probably the two biggest outliers of all time while Kobe doesn't really even stand out much in his own era and West has an argument for being a top 5 playoff performer of all time. I don't want to go too much into this though because I've taken part and seen these debates occur way too many times already. If you want to disagree that's fine. I'm not that interested in pursuing it.

That's fair. I was trying to answer the OP's question, "Why is Kobe, on average, above west and oscar in all time rankings?"
Kobe has better longevity, accolades, extensive media coverage on/off court, and played in a modern era. On the other hand, West and Oscar are completely overshadowed by Wilt in terms of box scores and by Russell in terms of accolades.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

ringz

[AdagioPace]

In order to appreciate Oscar and West you need to dig a bit deeper than you need for Kareem/Wilt/Russell (who enjoy stories and legends about them). West and Oscar are still alive for now. West is a famous character in californian basketball while Oscar is proto-lebron/westbrook. Someday both will end up like Sam Jones and Bob Cousy and disappear from mainstream media.

in 50 years how many people will remember Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul or Steve Nash?

For the most part I agree but I'm not really sure how this reply connects to what I wrote. It's sort of reiterating it except for including more recent players in a 50 years from now scenario. Which again, I'd agree with because most bb fans aren't going to bother doing heavy research into players who retired 40+ years prior.

a quote is not necessarily a rebuttal or something similar ! I was just brainstorming on what you wrote basically. Cheers.

[penbeast0]

...
Kobe was just a better player in a stronger era and achieved so much more in his career. In his 1st team selections, people needed to choose 2 guards from 29/30 teams instead of around a dozen.

Except Kobe wasn't a better player, just a bigger name in a more recent era. West, for example, was a better scorer relative to his league with better rts on similar volume without even the benefit of the 3 point line; a better playmaker, and a more consistently impactful defender ane even more of a playoff riser. Kobe was healthier, more recent, and in an era where he didn't have to face the greatest championship team of all time.

[Owly]

...
Kobe was just a better player in a stronger era and achieved so much more in his career. In his 1st team selections, people needed to choose 2 guards from 29/30 teams instead of around a dozen.

Except Kobe wasn't a better player, just a bigger name in a more recent era. West, for example, was a better scorer relative to his league with better rts on similar volume without even the benefit of the 3 point line; a better playmaker, and a more consistently impactful defender ane even more of a playoff riser. Kobe was healthier, more recent, and in an era where he didn't have to face the greatest championship team of all time.

Beyond which the reasoning is illogical and misunderstands league size, talent pool, competition and the relationship between them.

If the league expanded to 100 teams it wouldn't get any harder for the best players to win awards because the new talent would be lesser talent that couldn't make the league otherwise.

Rather, keeping a league small (holding all else equal) makes it harder to separate yourself as you are playing a higher average level opponent, both making your nightly opponent tougher in real, absolute terms and the bar for average higher, deflating you versus the larger league (and as an elite talent, you making up a much greater proportion of the average minutes at a position [or overall] again artificially deflates you) so being at a given level of goodness in absolute terms is punished by the smaller league.

The case for weakness would be about the talent pool (demographics etc).

Now if one is about pure "dominance" it might be said that the player in a diluted league is more dominant. They are a greater outlier from the mean player. And that is a natural bar.

Talent pool is complex, it's hard to compare fairly across eras etc ...still ...

[One_and_Done]

RANGZency bias. If Kobe had just played out his career in Charlotte instead of forcing his way to the Lakers, I doubt very many people have him in their top 15.

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

[Cavsfansince84]

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

I think even with 0 rings/finals he's a top 30 player of all time. So still tier(s) above Nique but definitely not the same if he plays 15+ years in Charlotte then maybe somewhere else but never wins a ring.

[70sFan]

RANGZency bias. If Kobe had just played out his career in Charlotte instead of forcing his way to the Lakers, I doubt very many people have him in their top 15.

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

Sometimes I wonder if your whole point of activity on this board is to show how much you dislike Bryant...

[rk2023]

RANGZency bias. If Kobe had just played out his career in Charlotte instead of forcing his way to the Lakers, I doubt very many people have him in their top 15.

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

Sometimes I wonder if your whole point of activity on this board is to show how much you dislike Bryant...

As well as the 60s era and Jokic

[iggymcfrack]

RANGZency bias. If Kobe had just played out his career in Charlotte instead of forcing his way to the Lakers, I doubt very many people have him in their top 15.

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

Sometimes I wonder if your whole point of activity on this board is to show how much you dislike Bryant...

Yeah, Wilkins is a little harsh as a comparison. Maybe more like Charles Barkley? Kobe had more longevity, but without the LA market and the narratives, he probably finishes his career without an MVP which Barkley did win. Does that seem like a fair comparison to you? Or do you think that his flashy style of play would lead him to be remembered as well as a Karl Malone even if he spent his career in a small market with a poor front office?

[penbeast0]

Pretty much this. If he'd played his career out in Charlotte he'd be seen in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins.

Sometimes I wonder if your whole point of activity on this board is to show how much you dislike Bryant...

Yeah, Wilkins is a little harsh as a comparison. Maybe more like Charles Barkley? Kobe had more longevity, but without the LA market and the narratives, he probably finishes his career without an MVP which Barkley did win. Does that seem like a fair comparison to you? Or do you think that his flashy style of play would lead him to be remembered as well as a Karl Malone even if he spent his career in a small market with a poor front office?

Nique and Barkley are bad comps because they never were good defenders; Kobe was (though not at the level of his All-D awards by any stretch). Maybe closer to a rich man's Clyde Drexler without the rings but the rings are a deserved part of his legacy.

[One_and_Done]

Rings don't make you a better or worse player.

[penbeast0]

No, but getting to and winning those rings with strong performances at the highest level of play v. those who never got there or performed well there does. That's why I have West above either despite his losses in the finals. He was great in those finals pretty often, despite the results, and it's not about whether you won or lost but about how you impacted the game. Oscar, on the other hand, did not have those opportunities in his greatest years, failing against the Boston buzzsaw or Wilt's Philly teams consistently. He only made it to the finals in a year where Kareem was the dominant player in the world, though as a significant piece.

[Cavsfansince84]

Rings don't make you a better or worse player.

They do alter the perception of a player though. Same as if Pau had stayed in Memphis and never won a ring he wouldn't be rated as highly either.