Franco wrote:flytimes11 wrote:Franco wrote:
"It's unique and can't be measured, yet I measure it into the top 5 to 10 careers in NBA history range."
Either you can measure it or you can't. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Kobe was the best "bad shot maker", due to his absurdly elite balance and body control. The effect of this was that no team could ever be certain that they could stop Kobe from shooting under any circumstances and he would often take "bad" shots. This meant that the defensive coverage of him had to be different. Point of attack defenders had to stay on him and could not step back and help defenders had to shade him and even throw double/triple teams at him, which lead to favorable outcomes for the Lakers
This isn't unique to Kobe. Sure, Kobe is the best at making the most out of a bad situation, the problem was never his ability to put pressure on defenses and force them to pay more attention to him. The problem with Kobe was his tendency to get himself into bad situations when he didn't need to in the first place.
These things can be measured to a certain extent, and while the eye test certainly is a part of understanding a players' impact, claiming just "well he just had way more impact than stats" and having nothing but "muh ringz" to back it up is basically playing make-believe basketball.
Kobe won back 2 back Chips. Nothing make believe about that. What bad situations are you talking about? Do you not see how 3 people defending Kobe provides a favorable advantage for the lakers bigs?