Is Kobe given the most flack of any star? Highlighting inconsistent arguments against him.

[flytimes11]

I’ve noticed that realgm is really inconsistent in terms of its arguments. One I see often is how Curry isn’t considered carried despite only having 1 fmvp. I also see people put Curry over kobe despite kobe having more career points, rebounds, assists etc. Many call 17-18 warriors greatest ever but it was a team that included Kobe that holds the greatest playoff record ever. It seems odd how curry can be argued over Kobe but Kobe can’t be argued over Lebron around here.

Another one I’ve seen frequented is using Kobe’s finals numbers in 2000 to paint a narrative he was carried but then using d wades playoff run numbers in 2013 instead of his finals numbers due to it fitting the narrative Lebron carried more. There is also never any mention that Kobe was injured in game 2 by Jalen rose who admitted to purposely injuring him. Lakers lost game 3 without him and needed his heroic effort in game 4. This is also when the finals was still 2-3-2 so that was a huge game 4 win. Also Kobe was “carried” in 01 and 02 which I feel has been debunked but many posters here still say it. Shaq did win 3 finals mvps in that stretch but to say replace Kobe with any all star and they still win is disingenuous as Shaq had Eddie jones and van exel and wasn’t able to actually win until Kobe became Kobe. 22 year old Lebron would not have won finals MVP over Shaq when Shaq is being guarded by the likes of last season in league Smits, Old Mutombo and whoever New Jersey center was. In 01 against the spurs Kobe led the way when Shaq had to be guarded by Duncan/robinson again never a mention of that.

I’ve also seen that Kobe isn’t in the convo with Lebron. But I want to shine light on something. I looked at a stat of minimum 40 mins played. In my opinion players of Lebron and Kobe caliber only play 40 mins if it’s absolutely called for and I feel like this comparison minimizes the statistical impact/gap between the two. This also mitigates potential deviations based on circumstance. The sample size is roughly 6 seasons so I feel like it’s enough.

Lebron
502 games

Ppg 30.3 rpg 8.0 apg 7.7 49%fg
Record 287-215 57-% winning percentage


Kobe
480 games

Ppg 31.1 rpg 6.5 apg 5.7 44.8 fg%
Record 269-211 56% winning percentage

I got these numbers from statmuse.

Those numbers look pretty close for someone who isn’t even in the same convo

5 championships to 4. More first team all defensive selections. I have no problem with someone saying Lebron is better but even Lebron would not agree that they don’t belong in the same convo. Lebron has called Kobe the best in the league at points in his career, this is his craft, don’t discredit what he has said due to a hatred of a player he is often compared to.

Lastly What argument really does a player like Kg have over Kobe because I see stuff like that all the time, he doesn’t even have a finals mvp since That is brought up so much in discussion. These are just a few of the arguments against Kobe I’ve seen but I’m sure there are more biased arguments out there. Please enlighten me.

[theforumblue]

no need to slander great Todd McCullough.

[FrobeBryant]

Guess you haven't heard that slandering Kobe is the cool thing to do on RealGM

[Bergmaniac]

I’ve noticed that realgm is really inconsistent in terms of its arguments.

It's almost like different posters have different opinions or something weird like that...

[cupcakesnake]

Realgm isn't one person.
One person making one argument and another person making another argument is not an inconsistency.

Your OP is a flourishing garden of strawmen.

[HotelVitale]

Not gonna respond to a lot of this but I'd give some friendly advice that your defense of Kobe seems pretty defensive and not always super fair, and that might be setting you up for bad arguments. Couple examples I saw skimming:
--"Many call 17-18 warriors greatest ever but it was a team that included Kobe that holds the greatest playoff record ever." Cool, but the argument there is 'best team' and it seems like there's no other measure or argument that could support that Lakers team being all-time anything. Seems like you're taking one interesting fact and not even bothering to surround it with others to make an argument that this team was better than the 17-18 Warriors, or other great teams. That team also had super-peak Shaq...
--"Shaq did win 3 finals mvps in that stretch but to say replace Kobe with any all star and they still win is disingenuous as Shaq had Eddie jones and van exel and wasn’t able to actually win until Kobe became Kobe." Sure, but that's a straw man argument that skips the real one--no one worth arguing with actually thinks ANY all-star was as good as Kobe, but that doesn't mean that it's not relevant that Kobe played with a top-10 all time guy at his ultra-peak during those years. Shaq was ridiculously good at that time, and it definitely has to be factored into any argument.
--"There is also never any mention that Kobe was injured in game 2 by Jalen rose who admitted to purposely injuring him." If you're rehashing possible injuries in one game in an argument about ATGs, you know you're probably too in the weeds and are grasping too hard for details that'll help you.

I'd also say that there are a lot of people who are really into good arguments who argue about ATGs, and then a lot of people who are just randomly pro- and anti-certain players and aren't going to give you the best hearing. Try to find the former and they'll bring up your overall level at making cases.

[JJ_PR]

There's a reason LeBron is the consensus #2 player of all time, while Kobe barely cracks the top 10. Context matters in this scenerio. Also, the off-court issues put a damper on Kobe's legacy.

Kobe is without a doubt an all-time great. He's the closest thing we've had to MJ. Being in the top 10 of all time conversation of the NBA isn't something to sneeze at, nothing to be ashamed of.

Curry has never been carried by anyone. Without him, none of those championships happen. He allowed KD to be the primary weapon offensively because he can play off the ball. He & KD fit like a glove.

[durden_tyler]

He's rightfully criticized. He was good but not GOAT good.

[EmperorLocky]

I’ve noticed that realgm is really inconsistent in terms of its arguments.

This is not good. Are the mods able to investigate and banish those that are inconsistent?

[KodiakBear]

Don't think he gets near the hate Lebron gets.

[Statlanta]

No. Kobe gets a lot of love but his play post-Achilles and his playstyle allowed statisticians to diminish his play post-career. It died down after his death but it still remains especially with Curry’s dynastic team success making everyone correlate efficiency with winning.

[The Servant]

Say what you will about efficiency, supporting cast with and for, the teams he faced in the yoffs (Suns, Spurs, Mavs)... He won 5 championships in 20 seasons. He has two Finals MVPs, an MVP, 2 scoring titles, 81.

[picko]

The star who receives the most 'flack' is LeBron without question. It borders on psychotic at times.

Kobe has also received a lot of criticism but, on balance, his reputation has probably always exceeded his impact. It's awfully difficult to make a coherent argument that he's a top 10 guy, whereas making that argument for LeBron is pretty easy.

Also RealGM is hardly a homogeneous group - we have insightful posters and **** posters often in equal measure. Asking for consistency among that group is simply asking too much.

Finally, your 40+ minute plus comparison only really proves that LeBron was better, particularly if you take a look at some of the more advanced figures from those games, such as the higher offensive rating for LeBron and the lower defensive rating.

[flytimes11]

Realgm isn't one person.
One person making one argument and another person making another argument is not an inconsistency.

Your OP is a flourishing garden of strawmen.

Maybe a poor choice of words but for you to be a mod, im sure you spend a lot of time on here don’t be naive. I saw a poster say replace mo Williams with d Wade in 2013 finals and they win easier and folks were agreeing. Don’t act like this place isn’t pro Lebron and what I’m saying is far fetched.

[NyKnicks1714]

But I want to shine light on something. I looked at a stat of minimum 40 mins played. In my opinion players of Lebron and Kobe caliber only play 40 mins if it’s absolutely called for and I feel like this comparison minimizes the statistical impact/gap between the two. This also mitigates potential deviations based on circumstance. The sample size is roughly 6 seasons so I feel like it’s enough.

Lebron
502 games

Ppg 30.3 rpg 8.0 apg 7.7 49%fg
Record 287-215 57-% winning percentage


Kobe
480 games

Ppg 31.1 rpg 6.5 apg 5.7 44.8 fg%
Record 269-211 56% winning percentage

There are much better ways to do that than by cherry picking games where they played 40+ minutes. That seems arbitrary and not particularly useful in any way.

[dockingsched]

As a Lakers fan the answer to your question is Lebron, not Kobe, and your post is evidence of that

[Moonbeam]

I think the discussion around Kobe suffers in the same way discussion around other players with big "player-only" fanbases does, like LeBron, Jordan, Iverson, and Melo. These guys all have large groups of people who are fans principally of them as players as opposed to the teams they play for, and as such, this subset of their fanbases often make outrageous claims in favor of their player, often denigrating the efforts of their teammates.

That so many "Kobe-only" fans thrust him into the GOAT conversion, often with wild hyperbole, leads to a reflexive pushback in response that often becomes just as hyperbolic and toxic. Genuine discussion around Kobe is very hard to have as a result.

Broadly, I'd say the general pluses for Kobe are that he had great longevity as a top-10 or top-5 player in the league, that his playoff performance was largely robust (with a few notable exceptions as is the case for almost everyone), and that he proved it was possible to win a championship with him as the lead player. I'd say the cons can largely be aggregated into the fact that while he has a good statistical footprint, it generally falls short of where he's usually considered in an all-time sense. I'm not sure there are many (if any) career-spanning metrics that put him in the top 10 of all time, so those who want to put him there generally are swimming upstream against the data to make that argument.

[flytimes11]

Not gonna respond to a lot of this but I'd give some friendly advice that your defense of Kobe seems pretty defensive and not always super fair, and that might be setting you up for bad arguments. Couple examples I saw skimming:
--"Many call 17-18 warriors greatest ever but it was a team that included Kobe that holds the greatest playoff record ever." Cool, but the argument there is 'best team' and it seems like there's no other measure or argument that could support that Lakers team being all-time anything. Seems like you're taking one interesting fact and not even bothering to surround it with others to make an argument that this team was better than the 17-18 Warriors, or other great teams. That team also had super-peak Shaq...
--"Shaq did win 3 finals mvps in that stretch but to say replace Kobe with any all star and they still win is disingenuous as Shaq had Eddie jones and van exel and wasn’t able to actually win until Kobe became Kobe." Sure, but that's a straw man argument that skips the real one--no one worth arguing with actually thinks ANY all-star was as good as Kobe, but that doesn't mean that it's not relevant that Kobe played with a top-10 all time guy at his ultra-peak during those years. Shaq was ridiculously good at that time, and it definitely has to be factored into any argument.
--"There is also never any mention that Kobe was injured in game 2 by Jalen rose who admitted to purposely injuring him." If you're rehashing possible injuries in one game in an argument about ATGs, you know you're probably too in the weeds and are grasping too hard for details that'll help you.

I'd also say that there are a lot of people who are really into good arguments who argue about ATGs, and then a lot of people who are just randomly pro- and anti-certain players and aren't going to give you the best hearing. Try to find the former and they'll bring up your overall level at making cases.

1. We have had many playoffs… you acting like 16-1 isn’t an outlier is pretty crazy. 17-18 warriors got taken to 7 games.

2. Like I said when you look at the western conference the statistical gap isn’t as large. To get to the finals you have to get through the west. The fact remains Shaq hasn’t done much without Kobe. Shaq was able to do what he did because of Kobe. They needed each other, not this one sided affair you make it out to be.

3. Kobe was averaging 21 a game in the 2000 playoffs. It would not be crazy to assume that playing on a bum ankle for 4 out of the 5 games of the series would affect someone’s numbers.

Watch a lot of what I said in my OP get repeated in here.

[flytimes11]

But I want to shine light on something. I looked at a stat of minimum 40 mins played. In my opinion players of Lebron and Kobe caliber only play 40 mins if it’s absolutely called for and I feel like this comparison minimizes the statistical impact/gap between the two. This also mitigates potential deviations based on circumstance. The sample size is roughly 6 seasons so I feel like it’s enough.

Lebron
502 games

Ppg 30.3 rpg 8.0 apg 7.7 49%fg
Record 287-215 57-% winning percentage


Kobe
480 games

Ppg 31.1 rpg 6.5 apg 5.7 44.8 fg%
Record 269-211 56% winning percentage

There are much better ways to do that than by cherry picking games where they played 40+ minutes. That seems arbitrary and not particularly useful in any way.

Cherry picking? Did I not provide a large sample size?

[watch1958]

Finally, a fresh topic.