Where would Peak Kobe rank today?

[Bidofo]

At the peak level Kobe's offensive gravity during the 2005/2006 scoring run was absolutely absurd

Was it? That team was horrible. Who else would you bother guarding on the 06 Lakers?

Like, that was a very impressive season from Kobe, but talking about Bryant's gravity on a team starting Kwame Brown, Smush Parker and Chris Mihm doesn't seem legitimate. Even if you account for Odom's presence, they had no one of consequence. There's space in the middle to avoid hyperbole like this.

Gravity is at least somewhat inversely correlated to strength of supporting cast. Your post reads as a point in favor of his absurd gravity, the fact that the Lakers had a +5.1 offense with Kobe on the court in spite of that miserable squad points to some pretty high offensive impact. The Lakers shot significantly better, grabbed more offensive boards, and reduced their turnovers with him on the court.

I think if anything, his gravity might be 'inflated' that particular season, but it was certainly there.

[tsherkin]

At the peak level Kobe's offensive gravity during the 2005/2006 scoring run was absolutely absurd

Was it? That team was horrible. Who else would you bother guarding on the 06 Lakers?

Like, that was a very impressive season from Kobe, but talking about Bryant's gravity on a team starting Kwame Brown, Smush Parker and Chris Mihm doesn't seem legitimate. Even if you account for Odom's presence, they had no one of consequence. There's space in the middle to avoid hyperbole like this.

Gravity is at least somewhat inversely correlated to strength of supporting cast. Your post reads as a point in favor of his absurd gravity, the fact that the Lakers had a +5.1 offense with Kobe on the court in spite of that miserable squad points to some pretty high offensive impact. The Lakers shot significantly better, grabbed more offensive boards, and reduced their turnovers with him on the court.

I think if anything, his gravity might be 'inflated' that particular season, but it was certainly there.

But gravity as a result of garbage teammates isnt salient to anything. It just means you are surrounded by trash and does not speak to player ability in context of comparison in a meaningful way.

[pancakes3]

Why not? It was obvious that Kobe's gravity, or rather his teammates lack of gravity, had him facing double teams regularly and he still scored 35. And when a team decided not to double him, he drops 81.

You might not like it, and it might not be conducive to winning, but being able to drop 35ppg on a garbage team when you're the only option is incredibly impressive. Arguably more impressive than getting 35ppg on a good team with lots of other options to keep the defense honest.

[Heej]

He's not better than Jokic and Regular Season Embiid

[JimmyFromNz]

At the peak level Kobe's offensive gravity during the 2005/2006 scoring run was absolutely absurd

Was it? That team was horrible. Who else would you bother guarding on the 06 Lakers?

Like, that was a very impressive season from Kobe, but talking about Bryant's gravity on a team starting Kwame Brown, Smush Parker and Chris Mihm doesn't seem legitimate. Even if you account for Odom's presence, they had no one of consequence. There's space in the middle to avoid hyperbole like this.

I respect your opinion but I'd disagree there is any hyperbole in there.

A couple of other posts have highlighted that, but I'd add it effectively makes it more impressive to me.

If it doesn't translate into relative success on that team then that becomes more of an argument. But it did, they were at 45 wins in a difficult conference and the team was better when he was shouldering the 4th highest usage of all time.

If we want to be relative about gravity then lets be relative about impact. Shouldering that efficiency/usage (noting the shot chart and difficulty of scoring on that team and in that era) being a single option is very impressive. For example that infamous January, of averaging 43/4/5 on 47/39/86 splits.

If we were talking about the gravity of a one season wonder this may make more sense, but we're discussing a player who consistently throughout his career saw more double/triple teams than 99% of players in history and is widely regarded as one of the best 'tough shot makers' ever.

Kobe's gravity was absolutely magnified in that season, because it had to be, but in the context of what we know about his career on good/bad teams (e.g. see how we defended him in 2008) I don't see that as being any sort of negating point.

Watch on YouTube

Obligatory peak seasons video.

[tsherkin]

I respect your opinion but I'd disagree there is any hyperbole in there.

A couple of other posts have highlighted that, but I'd add it effectively makes it more impressive to me.

There's a difference between discussing the quality of his scoring and his gravity, though.

I'm not arguing that his 06 season wasn't remarkable. It's one of 4 seasons in the 3pt era of 35+ ppg, and until 2019 when Harden did it, that was the only non-Jordan season where it happened. And it's impressive that he did it with that trash around him, for sure.

My contention was that his gravity means less in context because there was no reason to guard any of those guys around him, which is very true. He had nothing of consequence around him while doing that, which is basically why he was allowed to shoot that much and not be crucified for horrible team basketball, because they'd have been horrifically bad if he did not (which, while perhaps superior for team development, was not something LA was going to permit).

"Gravity" is about the impact of sucking the D away from other players. Those players have to be worthwhile for that to matter.

[Primedeion]

He'd be the best player in the world. 06 Kobe would do something like 38/6/5/2/61% TS with a bottom ten turnover rate and more gravity than anybody in the league.

That is still not better than Jokic. He would be Doncic with higher volume scoring, better defense and less playmaking

Jokic is better if he gets back to his 2023 level, but Luka is no Kobe. His impact is still lagging well behind his boxscore.

[McBubbles]

3rd after Jokic and Giannis.

[Pelly24]

Kobe would be a top 5 player. Jokic and Giannis are probably the only ones who are definitely better, and then you can mention Luka and Steph, give me Kobe over Steph. If LeBron can play like he has been in the playoffs, I maybe take him over Kobe (and Giannis).

Kobe could be a better version of SGA.

[Pelly24]

05/06 and 06/07 are not really seasons you want to use for comparison. Handcheck and illegal defense had just been changed or abandoned and defenses were still a bit clueless about how to deal with it. A lot of personal scoring records were broken those seasons. Guards and small fowards were slashing into the paint like there was no tomorrow. And yet still Kobe stayed behind on the rest and kept relying on his midrange.

And since talking about midrange, I saw the comparison between Kobe and SGA/Derozan pass by. Kobe's midrange efficiency peaked at 45%, was once more above 43% and thats about it. He didn't crack 40% untill his 5th season and hovered between 40 and 42% in his prime. That was great in the 00's, wouldn't be today. Bryant came in the league in the perfect sitaution. Fg% was still a thing, Jordan was about to retire and 1 year after Jordan retired Kobe got the same coach and same system in which Jordan cemented his legacy. That would not be the case today.

Derozan shot 47.4% two seasons ago. And that was nothing compared to KD (55.5), Aldridge (55.8) or Paul (51.9). This season SGA is at 52.4, Tatum at 50.8, Ingram at 48.8 and Murray at 47.9%. Last season we had Derozan (47.3), Durant (56.0), Booker (49.4), Leonard (49.2), Beal (47.6), Cunningham (48.2), Paul (47.7), Irving (49.5), Fox (47.0), Brunson (47.0) and Hunter (50.5). I don't think RealGM would go bonkers about some guy shooting 45.1 from midrange.

I know it's hard to think legacy away when answering these questions. But in this era stats are being dissected like bullfrogs are in High School. I don't think mentallity and cockyness only will get you very far when shooting 40% from midrange in today's game. Somewhere some coach would tell him to work harder on or shoot less from midrange. And maybe do more of something else, or not. Which would make him the average superstar there is today.

I have him at top 10. He might make it top 5, or not. But I'm sure he wouldn't be a high volume midrange shooter for any contender. Well, at least not one who would impress everyone.

Eh, Kobe's shot-selection was influenced by the time. He was taking shots over three defenders and everything. He had a lot of attempts at the rim and that would go up with more spacing.

TBH, I saw Kobe take apart the prime spurs and Melo and the Celtics, all that. FG%, midrange percentages, all that be damned, players aren't better now than they were then per se. The stats are juiced to oblivion, Kobe is much better than all of these people besides Jokic, Giannis, Embiid, healthy LeBron and Curry and Luka, and he has an argument over everyone but Jokic and Giannis. let Giannis dominate against great competition in the playoffs

[ShaqAttac]

ppl really tryna say peak kob isnt top 5? wtf

[Jaqua92]

Are we talking best production? Or best *player* when ranking?

If we're talking strictly how good he is? I'd imagine the top 5 looks something like this.

1. Jokic
2.Kobe/Giannis
4. Luka
5. Embiid

[HeartBreakKid]

05/06 and 06/07 are not really seasons you want to use for comparison. Handcheck and illegal defense had just been changed or abandoned and defenses were still a bit clueless about how to deal with it. A lot of personal scoring records were broken those seasons. Guards and small fowards were slashing into the paint like there was no tomorrow. And yet still Kobe stayed behind on the rest and kept relying on his midrange.

And since talking about midrange, I saw the comparison between Kobe and SGA/Derozan pass by. Kobe's midrange efficiency peaked at 45%, was once more above 43% and thats about it. He didn't crack 40% untill his 5th season and hovered between 40 and 42% in his prime. That was great in the 00's, wouldn't be today. Bryant came in the league in the perfect sitaution. Fg% was still a thing, Jordan was about to retire and 1 year after Jordan retired Kobe got the same coach and same system in which Jordan cemented his legacy. That would not be the case today.

Derozan shot 47.4% two seasons ago. And that was nothing compared to KD (55.5), Aldridge (55.8) or Paul (51.9). This season SGA is at 52.4, Tatum at 50.8, Ingram at 48.8 and Murray at 47.9%. Last season we had Derozan (47.3), Durant (56.0), Booker (49.4), Leonard (49.2), Beal (47.6), Cunningham (48.2), Paul (47.7), Irving (49.5), Fox (47.0), Brunson (47.0) and Hunter (50.5). I don't think RealGM would go bonkers about some guy shooting 45.1 from midrange.

I know it's hard to think legacy away when answering these questions. But in this era stats are being dissected like bullfrogs are in High School. I don't think mentallity and cockyness only will get you very far when shooting 40% from midrange in today's game. Somewhere some coach would tell him to work harder on or shoot less from midrange. And maybe do more of something else, or not. Which would make him the average superstar there is today.

I have him at top 10. He might make it top 5, or not. But I'm sure he wouldn't be a high volume midrange shooter for any contender. Well, at least not one who would impress everyone.

Eh, Kobe's shot-selection was influenced by the time. He was taking shots over three defenders and everything. He had a lot of attempts at the rim and that would go up with more spacing.

He was taking those shots when those shots were already out of vogue, and was criticized for taking those shots on the most mainstream media platforms. Those shots were entirely built on his personality and basketball IQ, not his era.