What was the debate? Can you find the thread? I've rarely heard Shaq or Duncan being touted as the best player in the league. Yes,
they've always been discussed as the best big man, player you want to build around, etc. But even when Shaq was in his prime, people openly acknowledged the distinction between being dominant at his position (shaq) and being the best all-around basketball player (kobe).
Nope, I sure couldn't. So I started one. Not that it really matters, but we'll see what the results are. (It was 11 for Shaq, 4 for Kobe, 3 for Duncan before I posted).
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=767977
My recollection hinges on the rash of articles I recall reading immediately after Duncan's Spurs won their fourth championship. Mind you, not who was the best last season, or the few seasons before that, but as a whole over the past decade since Jordan retired. There's a big difference, and I want to make it clear.
Interesting you used the phrase "player you want to build around," especially in acknowledging that this is a title that has often been bestowed upon Shaq and Duncan. Wouldn't this by default also equate to best player?
Kobe might be more skilled than either, but if GMs would rather build around Shaq or Duncan -- I highly, highly doubt many would turn down that opportunity in favor of a 6-6 shooting guard, even one as great as KB -- does it really matter?
Maybe the whole problem is how we each define "best". In my mind, it has less to do with skill or talent, and more to do with overall impact. Which is why I would rank Duncan and Shaq ahead of Kobe (for now). But the concept of "best player" can obviously be defined in any number of ways, and we're obviously on different wavelengths here.
What game? You're using different criteria. Yes, basketball is a team game and championships rely on more than one player's contributions. It's the same reason that one can't credit Jordan for all those championships (never won anything without Pippen) nor can one credit Shaq for all the championships (never won one without a great perimeter player).
You just validated my point - these are just games. At the end of the day, rings play a factor, but they shouldn't trump the statistical as well as intuitive evaluation of a player. For the same reason, Lebron is comparable to Kobe even though Lebron has ZERO rings. Yes, some Laker fans say, Kobe's got the hardware, Lebron could suck it. But anybody with an objective mind can see Lebron's talent and skill and acknowledge that Lebron is comparable, even without the hardware.
I agree that awards and championships are not absolute measures of greatness, and that they result from factors that are often outside of a particular player's control. At the same time, they're some of the few indisputable standards that can be applied in the highly subjective business of ranking and judging players.
You can come up with all sorts of qualifications relating to supporting casts, quality of coaching, playoff matchups, health, simple dumb luck, on and on and on. But the bottom line is, when given the opportunity to win major awards and championships as the alpha dogs, Shaq and Duncan did so on multiple occasions. Kobe, as of yet, has not. In my opinion, that should weigh heavily in the discussion.
Maybe that's not fair. But I think it's even less fair to take such achievements out of the equation. They happened, they matter, and they should be given the weight they deserve.
And if it's not close then why does everybody compare Kobe to Jordan every year of his career? And how is it that people who have seen them both, played with them both, played against them both, coached them both, say that Kobe IS comparable? Aren't their opinions a little more valuable than say, random fans who hardly have the benefit of firsthand experience?
I think it's pretty clear that, when comparing the two, the experts are basing their opinion on factors such as style, production, maybe even ability. But in terms of their respective resumes, again, it's not close.
*Five MVPs for Mike, zero for Kobe.
*Six Finals MVPs for Mike, zero for Kobe.
*Six championships won by Jordan's Bulls (all as undisputed team leader), three championships won by Kobe's Lakers (none as undisputed team leader).
*One Rookie of the Year for Mike, zero for Kobe.
*One Defensive Player of the Year award for Mike, zero for Kobe.
*Eleven scoring titles for Mike, four for Kobe.
*Seven PER titles for Mike, zero for Kobe.
*Three steals titles for Mike, zero for Kobe.
Giving each category equal value, that's a 40-7 advantage. Frankly, the only tangible area I can think of where Kobe bests Jordan is career scoring high. Other than that, Jordan's trophy case is superior, and his individual statistics are superior.
I'm not listing these things to belittle Kobe in the least. It's no shame to come up short in a head to head comparison with the best player of all time. But there's no way to ignore the absolutely massive chasm that exists relating to their respective resumes. It just can't be done.
That's just nonsense.
Well, there must be some reason that prize 7-footers always go No. 1 in the draft, or for the adage that you never trade bigs for smalls, or that the list of all-time NBA MVPs are dominated by big men.
If you're comfortable making a leap of faith like this:
Based on what I've read and heard the past 10 years, most people involved in the NBA in any way would say Kobe Bryant.
then I have absolutely no problem arguing that, if given a choice of positions, each and every GM in the NBA would build their team around a young, talented center every single time.
Yet you're forgetting they don't handle the ball and they're not responsible for running the offense. Guards are the ones who set things up, guards are the ones who work hard in creating shots for their teammates, even setting up Duncan and Shaq.
Don't centers also set teammates up by virtue of drawing double teams and finding the open man? They might not handle the ball nearly as much as guards do, but it's not as if play making is the exclusive realm of perimeter players.
And big men have a limited offensive game. No, they don't shoot threes, even the midrange game is rare, they struggle at the free throw line, and both Shaq and Tim Duncan have been liabilities at the charity stripe.
Limited? By what definition? Big men like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan had/have low-post games that took
years to hone, and a high level of skill to execute. They're not the norm, of course, but neither are multi-faceted perimeter scorers like Kobe and Bryant. Maybe Shaq and Chamberlain weren't so versatile, but considering the rate and efficiency with which they scored, who cares?
I'll take an open dunk over an open 3 every trip down court.
Also, I'd argue that the fact that low-post players typically shoot much better from the floor negate any short-comings at the line. Which is another reach; while free throw struggles do seem more prevalent among big men, it's not uncommon for many to excel in this area. For example, Kareem was a career 72 percent shooter, Hakeem 71, McHale 80, David Robinson 74, Moses Malone 77.
[/i]Defensively, yes they block shots - but guards also create steals and pressure the perimeter. It goes both ways. If guards didn't do their jobs, big men would get in foul trouble and become marginalized. Shaq and Duncan have always played next to great perimeter defenders. Defense goes both ways.[/i]
I don't buy this at all. In my opinion, there's absolutely no way you can compare the impact of an ball-hawking, shutdown perimeter defender, such as a Bruce Bowen, with the impact of a mobile, shot-blocking big like Tim Duncan.
Bowen is, or perhaps was, a fabulous man-up defender capable of shutting down anybody in the league. But no matter how well he's playing, he's still impacting just one man.
On the other hand, shot blockers like Duncan and Olajuwon can not only handle their man, but they also can disrupt an entire offense by shutting down the lane and forcing teams to settle for jumpers.
First of all, your bias against guards is blatant, and second, nobody's taking anything away from Shaq or Duncan or any other big man. They deserve all the praise they get. However, one thing they don't get praised for (at least not regularly) is being the best player in the league, so I'd say you're celebrating the wrong thing.
If preferring 7-footers who score at a high clip, shoot quality percentages, dominate the glass, block shots and draw double teams is "celebrating the wrong thing" then I guess I'm guilty as charged. You can have the mythical "best player in the league." I'll take the dominant big man every single time -- which in the majority of cases over the years was one and the same.
According to who? Most of the articles I have read, most of the commentaries I've heard, puts Kobe at that position. He's been the best player in the league for the better part of a decade, and that comes from past teammates such as Shaquille O'Neal, analysts, commentators, etc.
Again, I agree with your assertion that Kobe has earned these plaudits, but only over the past four years (which is generous, considering the case you could make for LeBron this, and maybe even last, season). I'm thinking about the entire decade since Jordan retired, stretching all the way back to the 1998-99 season.
If you can find me an expert who argues that Kobe is definitively the best since Jordan hung em up, or was calling Kobe the best back in 1999 or 2000, I'd love to see it because I don't recall reading it.
But again, we're probably back to having differing definitions on what the term "best" means, so I'm not sure what good it will do.
Maybe, but that doesn't take away one bit from what Kobe has accomplished in 12 seasons in the NBA. And that's what is remarkable about Kobe - even considering his championships, his individual feats, all the great things he's done over his illustrious career, he's still only 29.
Again, I didn't feel like I was taking anything away from Kobe. If he quit tomorrow, he will have established himself as one of the hardest-working and most gifted players to ever pick up a basketball.
I just don't think he deserves this unofficial mantle as "best since Jordan retired," nor do I think his resume can be compared to Jordan's.
Yet.
Which is the key word. He has an unbelievable opportunity over the next five years to achieve at the highest level, both individually and from a team standpoint.
It all boils down to winning. If things pan out like they should, and if Kobe is truly as great as he aspires to be, I don't see any reason why this team doesn't win two championships, possibly even three with a little luck.
Do that, and I'll be more than happy to kneel at the alter like everybody else. Until then, I'll hold to my opinion that he wasn't even the most important player on his own championship teams, let alone the best since Mike retired.
— Mags
haha
