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

[therealbig3]

So basically just Haley complaining. Haley who was brought onto NBA rosters soley to be Rodman's buddy. So basically 1 guy in Rodman, a nutjob, didn't care for D.Rob. Excuse me if I take that well salted.

I mean you can try to contextualize it all you want, but even squeaky clean hardcore Christian D-Rob can be picked apart. I mean, we actually did see a more recent example in Mark Jackson basically get black balled for proselytizing too much. In SA in the 90s, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really discussed much, so info is scarce, but we have someone in the actual locker room saying it caused issues. Given the team’s lackluster performance in the playoffs pretty consistently, how do we know it wasn’t because Robinson hurt team chemistry? Especially since they were good enough to help him lead them to 50 wins in the RS, but all of a sudden they became trash rosters in the playoffs?

I mean I also knew this was going to get dismissed immediately, because it goes against the narrative that’s being built here (Kobe bad, everyone else good).

The fact that Robinson couldn’t control Rodman but Jordan could kind of demonstrates that there ARE advantages to being a hard ass like Jordan (or Kobe). Guaranteed that Rodman would have shaped up and been much more productive if Kobe was the leader of the team instead of Robinson.

[One_and_Done]

With M.Jax we have a mountain of evidence. With D.Rob you have one guy, who is the mouthpiece of an insane lunatic, claiming he was causing some kind of undefined problem. Not worth taking seriously.

[HeartBreakKid]

So basically just Haley complaining. Haley who was brought onto NBA rosters soley to be Rodman's buddy. So basically 1 guy in Rodman, a nutjob, didn't care for D.Rob. Excuse me if I take that well salted.

I mean you can try to contextualize it all you want, but even squeaky clean hardcore Christian D-Rob can be picked apart. I mean, we actually did see a more recent example in Mark Jackson basically get black balled for proselytizing too much. In SA in the 90s, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really discussed much, so info is scarce, but we have someone in the actual locker room saying it caused issues. Given the team’s lackluster performance in the playoffs pretty consistently, how do we know it wasn’t because Robinson hurt team chemistry? Especially since they were good enough to help him lead them to 50 wins in the RS, but all of a sudden they became trash rosters in the playoffs?

I mean I also knew this was going to get dismissed immediately, because it goes against the narrative that’s being built here (Kobe bad, everyone else good).

The fact that Robinson couldn’t control Rodman but Jordan could kind of demonstrates that there ARE advantages to being a hard ass like Jordan (or Kobe). Guaranteed that Rodman would have shaped up and been much more productive if Kobe was the leader of the team instead of Robinson.

Why wouldn't you contextualize something?

Michael Jordan never "controlled" Dennis Rodman.

Also, Dennis Rodman was teammates with Kobe Bryant, along with other "alpha" people and he certainly didn't give a ****. I don't think you are really guaranteeing anything, unless you do not know what that word means (also, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are not the same person - I can't believe that actually has to be said).

Since we are not "contextualizing" anything, then your point about Kobe controlling Rodman is already false.



I'm not going to say anything more on the topic, but trying the "see, everyone is bad so Kobe Bryant never had character issue" thing is really weak. I doubt David Robinson was ever considered toxic as we haven't heard of anything about it. Certainly nothing compared to Kobe Bryant raping someone, the lad had character issues when he was younger.

I don't punish players for bad personalities and I don't think Kobe Bryant really hurt the Lakers as he won a ton anyway. But comparing him to David Robinson is really ridiculous.

[therealbig3]

So basically just Haley complaining. Haley who was brought onto NBA rosters soley to be Rodman's buddy. So basically 1 guy in Rodman, a nutjob, didn't care for D.Rob. Excuse me if I take that well salted.

I mean you can try to contextualize it all you want, but even squeaky clean hardcore Christian D-Rob can be picked apart. I mean, we actually did see a more recent example in Mark Jackson basically get black balled for proselytizing too much. In SA in the 90s, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really discussed much, so info is scarce, but we have someone in the actual locker room saying it caused issues. Given the team’s lackluster performance in the playoffs pretty consistently, how do we know it wasn’t because Robinson hurt team chemistry? Especially since they were good enough to help him lead them to 50 wins in the RS, but all of a sudden they became trash rosters in the playoffs?

I mean I also knew this was going to get dismissed immediately, because it goes against the narrative that’s being built here (Kobe bad, everyone else good).

The fact that Robinson couldn’t control Rodman but Jordan could kind of demonstrates that there ARE advantages to being a hard ass like Jordan (or Kobe). Guaranteed that Rodman would have shaped up and been much more productive if Kobe was the leader of the team instead of Robinson.

Why wouldn't you contextualize something?

Michael Jordan never "controlled" Dennis Rodman.

Also, Dennis Rodman was teammates with Kobe Bryant, along with other "alpha" people and he certainly didn't give a ****. I don't think you are really guaranteeing anything, unless you do not know what that word means (also, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are not the same person..).

Since we are not "contextualizing" anything, then your point about Kobe controlling Rodman is already false.

The issue is there has been a lack of contextualization for Kobe, quickly trying to paint him as a toxic presence who was costing his team games routinely. But bring up issues with other players that have a more favorable reputation, and they're quickly explained away.

Kobe and Jordan are as close as it gets in terms of mentality and approach to the game and leadership style. And it's clear that the alpha dog hardass was much better at keeping Rodman focused (Isiah, Jordan) than the "nice guy" (Robinson). I stand by it, there are benefits to having a leader like Kobe (in actual life too btw), and based on track record, Rodman would have responded to him a lot better than Robinson.

I mean, people are actually arguing that Kobe's selfishness cost his team more than anyone else in history, other than Wilt. That's a laughable statement.

[OhayoKD]

There are a lot of great players in NBA history who have had attitude issues, and we’ve already votedin some like Shaq, Wilt, Jordan and Magic. I see those issues as either things that should also be held against those players, or things that are distinct from the problems Kobe causes. Let’s start with the second aspect first.

TLDR: Kobe winning 5 championships, leading elite offenses(even goatish by the standard used for last thread's inductee), and posting strong creation metrics is all noise/luck because those few snippets of kobe's career I've cherrypicked to build a narrative were definitely representative of how Kobe consistently played or didn't play...

Do you do this with players like KD, Shaq, and MJ who've all had similar(documented)"selfishness" issues? Or do you only project players worst moments as determinenitive of their entire careers when it's the ones you don't like

The only player I can think of whose selfishness issues hurt his teams the way Kobe did was Wilt. Neither one of them impacted winning the way you thought they should with their talent due to their attitude issues. I wouldn’t have either player in my top 15.

Think again:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107235609#p107235609

[OhayoKD]

I mean you can try to contextualize it all you want, but even squeaky clean hardcore Christian D-Rob can be picked apart. I mean, we actually did see a more recent example in Mark Jackson basically get black balled for proselytizing too much. In SA in the 90s, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really discussed much, so info is scarce, but we have someone in the actual locker room saying it caused issues. Given the team’s lackluster performance in the playoffs pretty consistently, how do we know it wasn’t because Robinson hurt team chemistry? Especially since they were good enough to help him lead them to 50 wins in the RS, but all of a sudden they became trash rosters in the playoffs?

I mean I also knew this was going to get dismissed immediately, because it goes against the narrative that’s being built here (Kobe bad, everyone else good).

The fact that Robinson couldn’t control Rodman but Jordan could kind of demonstrates that there ARE advantages to being a hard ass like Jordan (or Kobe). Guaranteed that Rodman would have shaped up and been much more productive if Kobe was the leader of the team instead of Robinson.

Why wouldn't you contextualize something?

Michael Jordan never "controlled" Dennis Rodman.

Also, Dennis Rodman was teammates with Kobe Bryant, along with other "alpha" people and he certainly didn't give a ****. I don't think you are really guaranteeing anything, unless you do not know what that word means (also, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are not the same person..).

Since we are not "contextualizing" anything, then your point about Kobe controlling Rodman is already false.

The issue is there has been a lack of contextualization for Kobe, quickly trying to paint him as a toxic presence who was costing his team games routinely. But bring up issues with other players that have a more favorable reputation, and they're quickly explained away.

Kobe and Jordan are as close as it gets in terms of mentality and approach to the game and leadership style. And it's clear that the alpha dog hardass was much better at keeping Rodman focused (Isiah, Jordan) than the "nice guy" (Robinson). I stand by it, there are benefits to having a leader like Kobe (in actual life too btw), and based on track record, Rodman would have responded to him a lot better than Robinson.

I mean, people are actually arguing that Kobe's selfishness cost his team more than anyone else in history, other than Wilt. That's a laughable statement.

If Jordan "controlled" Rodman it was by appeasing him not "being an ultra-hard ass"(which ironically, Drob kind of was). MJ was not in change in Chicago. Bullying Steve Kerr doesn't change that. He was in charge in Washington. He was closer to in change under Doug Collins. If you want to champion those periods as great success stories, by all means, but Jordan did not galvanize his co-stars with bullying lol.

[therealbig3]

So basically just Haley complaining. Haley who was brought onto NBA rosters soley to be Rodman's buddy. So basically 1 guy in Rodman, a nutjob, didn't care for D.Rob. Excuse me if I take that well salted.

I mean you can try to contextualize it all you want, but even squeaky clean hardcore Christian D-Rob can be picked apart. I mean, we actually did see a more recent example in Mark Jackson basically get black balled for proselytizing too much. In SA in the 90s, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really discussed much, so info is scarce, but we have someone in the actual locker room saying it caused issues. Given the team’s lackluster performance in the playoffs pretty consistently, how do we know it wasn’t because Robinson hurt team chemistry? Especially since they were good enough to help him lead them to 50 wins in the RS, but all of a sudden they became trash rosters in the playoffs?

I mean I also knew this was going to get dismissed immediately, because it goes against the narrative that’s being built here (Kobe bad, everyone else good).

The fact that Robinson couldn’t control Rodman but Jordan could kind of demonstrates that there ARE advantages to being a hard ass like Jordan (or Kobe). Guaranteed that Rodman would have shaped up and been much more productive if Kobe was the leader of the team instead of Robinson.

Why wouldn't you contextualize something?

Michael Jordan never "controlled" Dennis Rodman.

Also, Dennis Rodman was teammates with Kobe Bryant, along with other "alpha" people and he certainly didn't give a ****. I don't think you are really guaranteeing anything, unless you do not know what that word means (also, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are not the same person - I can't believe that actually has to be said).

Since we are not "contextualizing" anything, then your point about Kobe controlling Rodman is already false.



I'm not going to say anything more on the topic, but trying the "see, everyone is bad so Kobe Bryant never had character issue" thing is really weak. I doubt David Robinson was ever considered toxic as we haven't heard of anything about it. Certainly nothing compared to Kobe Bryant raping someone, the lad had character issues when he was younger.

I don't punish players for bad personalities and I don't think Kobe Bryant really hurt the Lakers as he won a ton anyway. But comparing him to David Robinson is really ridiculous.

And after reading your edits, I think you completely missed the point, and are arguing a bunch of strawmen here.

I'm bringing up Robinson to point out how everyone can have things cherry picked, like people are doing against Kobe, and yes, Kobe could be a jerk, so you can dig up a lot more dirt on him than other players, but in terms of hurting his team because he was that toxic or that bad of a leader or that bad of a teammate or that big of a ballhog? Literally zero evidence for that other than one really bad series in 04...which isn't any different than just "playing bad in a series". I'm not doing a direct comparison to Robinson as a teammate, but don't cherry pick ****. It's more to highlight how weak these "toxic Kobe" arguments have been, that even Robinson could also be called out using the same standard. He yelled at Kwame and Smush? Really? Teammates don't yell at each other or don't get along, that's a Kobe-exclusive thing? Coaches didn't like his playstyle when he was younger? No way, an ISO-heavy player with insane confidence in his own abilities doesn't always get along with his coaches, please tell me more about this phenomenon that has never been seen before! It must mean he was awful!

Although if we want to talk about leadership, I think there's actually a really strong argument for Kobe, but it doesn't really change how I feel about them as players, so it doesn't really matter.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

We don't need to take Jack Haley's word for it; D-Rob himself has copped to this. This is from interviews he gave to Jack McCallum for McCallum's book "Dream Team"

"I first got saved in 1991," he told me years later. "It was something that was really emerging in my life, and I was just trying to understand it myself. I probably did talk about it a little too much in the locker room. Larry Brown [the San Antonio coach at the time] and some other people didn't like it. Guys are like 'Christians are soft. They're not going to cut your throat out when it's throat-cutting time.' That was the thinking.

But my mentality was, I want to help my teammates. If I can stop someone from running around in circles in their private life, I want to do that. I just had to find the right way to go about it. I was struggling about when to say something and when to keep my mouth shut."

And there's also this passage about Robinson trying to bring Barkley to the Lord during their time in Barcelona in 1992:

Later in Barcelona, Robinson and Barkley would have a conversation about Christianity, Apollo sitting down with Dionysus. They were lifting weights - "Well, I have lifting and Charles was just sitting there," says Robinson - and Barkley said to him, "David you need to say what's on your mind. You need to be more honest." Robinson responded this way: "What you mean to say is not more honest. You mean more controversial. That's two different things."

And then Robinson opened up to him.

"Charles, I love the fact that you're not afraid to say what you want to say even if it's going to get you in trouble. And that will be an even better thing if you ever give your heart to the Lord. You're going to need that quality of talking plain because people will not necessarily want to hear what you're saying."

D-Rob is basically admitting here that he did this type of stuff back then.

Now, having said all of that - I don't really think there's much evidence that his doing that stuff actually had a detrimental effect on the on-court product.

And I think it's incorrect to say that it was his fault that Rodman didn't work out in San Antonio. As has been pointed out, Avery Johnson and Terry Cummings were also Christians, and it seems like the Spurs had a fairly conservative culture back then. Rodman was a huge character who wanted to be able to do things his way and the organization as a whole wasn't having it. Rodman was more the odd man out there than Robinson was. There is a degree to which Jordan and Pippen kept Rodman in check, I guess, but I think it was more that the Bulls organization basically allowed Rodman to do whatever he wanted and be fully himself as long as he produced on the court.

With M.Jax we have a mountain of evidence. With D.Rob you have one guy, who is the mouthpiece of an insane lunatic, claiming he was causing some kind of undefined problem. Not worth taking seriously.

Eh, I'm not a fan of characterizing Rodman like that. I think he's a complicated individual deserving of a more nuanced analysis, but that's really getting off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.

[Doctor MJ]

Sure, but I think it became obvious that Kobe clearly wasn’t the same guy in 2011 anymore, despite a pretty stat line, and they simply ran into better teams. He was also basically the only positive thing about the 2013 Lakers. I can’t really criticize much about Kobe in that post prime stretch. And there certainly wasn’t a cloud of selfishness or attitude issues from Kobe costing them in the playoffs those years, if anything that was coming from someone else (Bynum or Howard).

So, Imma try to avoid being drawn into statements about Kobe and selfishness, but I will say:

I don't think it is obvious that Kobe wasn't the same guy in 2011. He was seen as in-prime at the time, he was still putting up big stats, and if the team had gone through and 3-peated in those playoffs literally no one would see this as his post-prime. Were his numbers down particularly in the playoffs? Sure, but the very next year his scoring volume went back up to normal again.

This is another way of saying: While it's to give Kobe less credit for 2011 than 2010 - I certainly do - it gets dodgy when you look to excise 2011 from the evaluation of Kobe not-losing-when-he's-supposed-to-win for reasons that clearly seem related to him losing when he was supposed to win in 2011.

[therealbig3]

Sure, but I think it became obvious that Kobe clearly wasn’t the same guy in 2011 anymore, despite a pretty stat line, and they simply ran into better teams. He was also basically the only positive thing about the 2013 Lakers. I can’t really criticize much about Kobe in that post prime stretch. And there certainly wasn’t a cloud of selfishness or attitude issues from Kobe costing them in the playoffs those years, if anything that was coming from someone else (Bynum or Howard).

So, Imma try to avoid being drawn into statements about Kobe and selfishness, but I will say:

I don't think it is obvious that Kobe wasn't the same guy in 2011. He was seen as in-prime at the time, he was still putting up big stats, and if the team had gone through and 3-peated in those playoffs literally no one would see this as his post-prime. Were his numbers down particularly in the playoffs? Sure, but the very next year his scoring volume went back up to normal again.

This is another way of saying: While it's to give Kobe less credit for 2011 than 2010 - I certainly do - it gets dodgy when you look to excise 2011 from the evaluation of Kobe not-losing-when-he's-supposed-to-win for reasons that clearly seem related to him losing when he was supposed to win in 2011.

IMO, they were pre-series favorites against the Mavs sure, but honestly assessing that series, the Mavs had the deeper, better coached, and more cohesive team, and a superstar in Dirk who was unguardable for most of the playoffs. I think the Mavs were the better team, and I don't think it's fair to look back at that and say "Kobe should have led them to a series win, because analysts ended up underrating the Mavs".

I also remember real-time conversations that year discussing how Kobe wasn't as good as he was the year prior and that he's no longer prime Kobe anymore. Even in terms of RAPM data, there's a clear dropoff from Kobe going from consistently in the top 5 range to outside the top 25.

Anyway, my basic point is that outside of the 04 Finals, I can't really point to a series loss with Kobe where I can say "yup, he got carried away with his own ego and cost his team". The narrative that's being pushed is that it was a routine occurrence for him. I also think that "Kobe being selfish" is like saying "LeBron choked". It doesn't actually mean anything, at the end of the day, they played bad. It's as if someone didn't have any sort of perceived mentality issues and just couldn't hit a shot. It is what it is, the result is the same. And imo, Kobe's track record proves that 2004 is NOT who he was for the majority of his career.

[rk2023]

1. Kobe Bryant
2. George Mikan

These pro-Kobe posts are confirming my view that the pro-Kobe vote is not due to any sort of modermist views, but is driven by a kind of 'achievenent/accolades' metric which is kind of the antithesis of how I rate guys. Almost every Kobe voter has an old timie candidate next, which is instructive.

I don't see why Mikan dominating 3 years before Russell arrived matters, given how much the league had changed in that time. It certainly isn't compelling to me, as I wouldn't have voted Russell in yet for era reasons.

You cite the same 'combined SRS' metric that was debunked as invalid in the Hakeem threads, and is even more invalid here for reasons that have been explained already. Do I really need to explain again why beating 4 opponents with an SRS of 4 might not be as impressive as beating 4 teams with an SRS of -1, 3, 7 and 7? It should be common sense, and that's before we even factor in other context like injuries, teams coasting in the RS, era difference, etc.

Tremendous arguments rooted in a more modernistic view of analysis / understanding impact and player value have been presented by various Kobe voters and those mentioning him (eg. f4p, realbig3, AEnigma, Trex) - while said arguments extends for all these 'old timies'. Pretty sure f4p's resiliency studies have graded Mikan and West quite highly. Surprised you aren't factoring that in as one I've seen consistently cite the bbref box-score(S).

[AEnigma]

I understand someone turning to Vegas odds when they have absolutely no sense themselves for how good the teams are, but otherwise those odds are too tied to inputs that are not themselves a measure of team quality to be worth much of anything in these conversations (when not explicitly referring to a direct question about those odds). The Mavericks were a better team than the Lakers before they beat the Lakers. We can have expected the Lakers to win anyway — Kobe had done it before — but not exceeding expectations is not a damnable offence. And that was even more apparent in 2012.

Maybe some can focus more on the Lakers perhaps not mounting as much of a fight as expected, but even then I find myself minimally bothered. In 2011 and 2012 the Lakers never had a shot to win. Blame Kobe for some of that, alright, but if he has the best series of his life he still loses, so what is that ultimately worth.

[One_and_Done]

What realbig3 glosses over is that the Mavs didn’t just win in 2011 because they had a “better team” (assuming for the sake of argument that this is actually true; it certainly wasn’t the view coming into the series). The Mavs also swept the Lakers because Dirk absolutely cooked Kobe. Cooked him. I note the stats in my OP on page 1.

I also think the suggestion of realbig3 that Kobe “always won when he was supposed to, except 04” is completely revisionist history. The Lakers were favoured over the Spurs in 03, and it remains miraculous that Duncan was able to carry his threadbare cast over the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. The Lakers were huge favourites in 04, both at the start of the season and heading into the series, and as realbig3 admits it was Kobe’s selfish play that cost them any chance at winning. 2005-07 was largely on Kobe too. By forcing the team to trade Shaq and fire Phil before he would agree to an extension, and let’s be real this is what happened, he forced the team to move Shaq at a discount and move on from a coach they would have to admit they needed less than 2 years later. In 2004 many were incredulous that the Lakers would actually trade Shaq, and then when they did that they got so little for him. In hindsight the trade was not too bad, but that was not the feeling at the time. Letting the team slow play things and shop around for a better offer would have likely allowed them to get a better return.

These were things Kobe forced on the team because of his own selfish desires, not because he felt the team needed to move Shaq to get better. He was, and I am quoting him here, “sick of being Robin”. Sure, there were other factors in Shaq being moved, but those were not factors that Kobe was making a rationale cost-benefit analysis of. He wanted Shaq and Phil gone because he felt they were hurting his ability to get the credit for things. Looking at Kobe’s numbers in the finals generally, including in 08 and 10, one certainly walks away with the view that the Lakers would have had an easier time of it if he’d just played in a more optimal way. That was both the way many felt at the time, and obvious in hindsight. Yeh, they still won in 2010, but in spite of his selfish play not because of it. The circus around the 2013 season, where the Lakers 100% underachieved based on what the expectations were, was in large part on Kobe for a number of reasons including refusing to play how D’Antoni wanted, getting into it with Dwight, and lazy defensive play.

[penbeast0]

Is this particular conversation actually getting us anywhere? Let's move on. (Saying this as a poster, not a mod.)

[OhayoKD]

Sure, but I think it became obvious that Kobe clearly wasn’t the same guy in 2011 anymore, despite a pretty stat line, and they simply ran into better teams. He was also basically the only positive thing about the 2013 Lakers. I can’t really criticize much about Kobe in that post prime stretch. And there certainly wasn’t a cloud of selfishness or attitude issues from Kobe costing them in the playoffs those years, if anything that was coming from someone else (Bynum or Howard).

So, Imma try to avoid being drawn into statements about Kobe and selfishness, but I will say:

I don't think it is obvious that Kobe wasn't the same guy in 2011. He was seen as in-prime at the time, he was still putting up big stats, and if the team had gone through and 3-peated in those playoffs literally no one would see this as his post-prime. Were his numbers down particularly in the playoffs? Sure, but the very next year his scoring volume went back up to normal again.

This is another way of saying: While it's to give Kobe less credit for 2011 than 2010 - I certainly do - it gets dodgy when you look to excise 2011 from the evaluation of Kobe not-losing-when-he's-supposed-to-win for reasons that clearly seem related to him losing when he was supposed to win in 2011.

Were they expecting the Mavs to post the best regular-season srs and dominate two other 55-win teams before beating the lebron-wade-bosh heatles

Expectations are a starting point. They don't mean much of anything on their own

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Yeah, re the post-2010 Lakers...

In terms of perception, it was pretty shocking at the time that the two-time defending champion Lakers lost - not just that they lost, but how they lost, how they were swept, how they lost the first two games at home, how Artest got suspended, and then how Odom and Bynum got ejected while team was getting blown out in the last game. And Phil Jackson, in what would be his final games as a coach, looking completely checked out.

In hindsight, the Mavs were in the middle of an all-time lighting-in-a-bottle playoff run, but based on their regular seasons, the Mavs had a 4.41 SRS and a +4.6 Net Rtg while the Lakers had a 6.01 SRS and +6.7 Net Rtg. No one at the time was expecting the Mavs to just roll over the Lakers.

That the Lakers needed six games to get past a 1.28 SRS/+1.0 Net Rtg New Orleans team in the first round should have been an indication, though.

Having said all that, while I do think Kobe had begun a natural decline, I don't think that loss was specifically his fault.

As for the 2012-13 team...there were a number of issues there.

1. Dr. Buss was ill by then and the kids, specifically Jim Buss, had begun running things more.
2. Steve Nash injured his leg two games into the season, missed 32 games and was never the same. His RAPM in 12-13 was 2.45, down from 5.31, 5.95, and 6.23 in the three seasons prior to that.
3. Pau Gasol missed 30+ games with plantar fasciitis.
4. Dwight had had back surgery in the offseason and didn't fully look the same.
5. The controversy over Jim Buss hiring D'Antoni over Phil created a distraction for the team, and D'Antoni proved to be a lousy fit with the personnel; I distinctly remember him trying to put Pau in a corner and have him shoot threes because he didn't know how to work with two bigs.
6. Kobe and Dwight clashed...I don't take this to be Kobe being toxic, but rather just two personalities that were not compatible with each other - Kobe the competitor vs Dwight who never seemed like he cared enough about winning.
7. Cap it all off with Kobe tearing his achilles, effectively ending his time as an impact player.

I don't think you can blame Kobe for that year.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Oh, and the season between those two - the lockout 2011-12 season - is the season that started with the whole vetoed CP3 deal, resulting in Gasol and Odom knowing their FO had agreed to trade them, and Odom being so bothered that they had to quickly trade him away for essentially nothing(a future 1st that they subsequently traded for Jordan Hill).

And they were starting with a new coach.

So the team wasn't exactly in a good headspace for that season.

[AEnigma]

In hindsight, the Mavs were in the middle of an all-time lighting-in-a-bottle playoff run, but based on their regular seasons, the Mavs had a 4.41 SRS and a +4.6 Net Rtg while the Lakers had a 6.01 SRS and +6.7 Net Rtg.

Mostly agree with your post, but will press this a bit: the Mavericks had that SRS because of how atrocious they were without Dirk (2-7 and -9 per game point differential). At full health, they were better than the Lakers.

Again, not saying I thought they would beat the Lakers because of that; I gave the Lakers the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, when it turned out that yep the Mavericks were indeed better than the Lakers after all, that was not any particular shock to me (although a +16 or whatever sweep certainly was — but I think we agree only so much of that can be pinned individually on Kobe).

[70sFan]

We don't need to take Jack Haley's word for it; D-Rob himself has copped to this. This is from interviews he gave to Jack McCallum for McCallum's book "Dream Team"

"I first got saved in 1991," he told me years later. "It was something that was really emerging in my life, and I was just trying to understand it myself. I probably did talk about it a little too much in the locker room. Larry Brown [the San Antonio coach at the time] and some other people didn't like it. Guys are like 'Christians are soft. They're not going to cut your throat out when it's throat-cutting time.' That was the thinking.

But my mentality was, I want to help my teammates. If I can stop someone from running around in circles in their private life, I want to do that. I just had to find the right way to go about it. I was struggling about when to say something and when to keep my mouth shut."

And there's also this passage about Robinson trying to bring Barkley to the Lord during their time in Barcelona in 1992:

Later in Barcelona, Robinson and Barkley would have a conversation about Christianity, Apollo sitting down with Dionysus. They were lifting weights - "Well, I have lifting and Charles was just sitting there," says Robinson - and Barkley said to him, "David you need to say what's on your mind. You need to be more honest." Robinson responded this way: "What you mean to say is not more honest. You mean more controversial. That's two different things."

And then Robinson opened up to him.

"Charles, I love the fact that you're not afraid to say what you want to say even if it's going to get you in trouble. And that will be an even better thing if you ever give your heart to the Lord. You're going to need that quality of talking plain because people will not necessarily want to hear what you're saying."

D-Rob is basically admitting here that he did this type of stuff back then.

Now, having said all of that - I don't really think there's much evidence that his doing that stuff actually had a detrimental effect on the on-court product.

And I think it's incorrect to say that it was his fault that Rodman didn't work out in San Antonio. As has been pointed out, Avery Johnson and Terry Cummings were also Christians, and it seems like the Spurs had a fairly conservative culture back then. Rodman was a huge character who wanted to be able to do things his way and the organization as a whole wasn't having it. Rodman was more the odd man out there than Robinson was. There is a degree to which Jordan and Pippen kept Rodman in check, I guess, but I think it was more that the Bulls organization basically allowed Rodman to do whatever he wanted and be fully himself as long as he produced on the court.

Man, Robinson seems to be such a good man and cool guy to play with. He was probably a bit naive in this regard as a young and passionate man, but I don't understand how you can hold it against him. The first quote in particular is very saddening.

Every time I hear something from Robinson's off-court life, I come out liking him even more.

[70sFan]

These pro-Kobe posts are confirming my view that the pro-Kobe vote is not due to any sort of modermist views, but is driven by a kind of 'achievenent/accolades' metric which is kind of the antithesis of how I rate guys. Almost every Kobe voter has an old timie candidate next, which is instructive.

Are you aware that most non-modernists don't rate players based on accolades here?