Where does Kobe rank All-Time with another Repeat?

[kasino]

he would have more rings.

[Gongxi]

Unfortunately for Steve Kerr, that doesn't actually say too much about the player as a whole.

[Esohny]

Still below OJ Simpson.

[SDChargers#1]

I hate it when people bring up the Steve Kerrs and Robert Horry's in these conversation.

Championships absolutely matter, but only when players are relatively close in other aspects.

Do Kerr's and Horry's championships matter when comparing to Hakeem? Obviously not.

However when comparing Steve Kerr to say a Kyle Korver (a similar player in that they are both role player 3 point specialist) obviously Steve Kerr's championships then come into play so show that he is a vastly superior player.

Now since Shaq and Kobe are close (career wise, not during 3 peat years) 5 championships for Kobe and being a superior defensive player may be what puts him over Shaq and his 4 championships and higher peak.

[microfib4thewin]

he would have more rings.

Doesn't work that way. Otherwise we'd be saying Kobe is above Wilt. Shaq was a superior player during the 3 peat who proved he can win a title without another great player in 2000. There is not enough evidence to suggest Kobe would have done the same if he was the best player on the 00-02 Lakers. Kobe is better than a typical second option on a championship team, but there is enough of a separation during their peak for Shaq to be above Kobe even after Kobe has his fifth ring.

Kobe would need to win his sixth ring as a top 5 player before he should be considered in the same breath as Shaq. 3 rings as the main man + 3 rings as the second fiddle > 3 rings with an insane peak and 1 ring as second fiddle.

[CousinOfDeath]

I hate it when people bring up the Steve Kerrs and Robert Horry's in these conversation.

Championships absolutely matter, but only when players are relatively close in other aspects.

Do Kerr's and Horry's championships matter when comparing to Hakeem? Obviously not.

However when comparing Steve Kerr to say a Kyle Korver (a similar player in that they are both role player 3 point specialist) obviously Steve Kerr's championships then come into play so show that he is a vastly superior player.

Now since Shaq and Kobe are close (career wise, not during 3 peat years) 5 championships for Kobe and being a superior defensive player may be what puts him over Shaq and his 4 championships and higher peak.

So you're saying 1 more championship > a higher peak?

[Jordan23Forever]

I think people get really attached to Bird's 3 year peak (albeit an AMAZING peak) and overrate him for that reason. But remember a) the league was MUCH faster pace, his numbers wouldn't look nearly as good in today's league b) 3 years don't make a career.

Bird could easily - EASILY - average 27+/9+/6+ in today's league.

[Gongxi]

I hate it when people bring up the Steve Kerrs and Robert Horry's in these conversation.

Championships absolutely matter, but only when players are relatively close in other aspects.

Do Kerr's and Horry's championships matter when comparing to Hakeem? Obviously not.

However when comparing Steve Kerr to say a Kyle Korver (a similar player in that they are both role player 3 point specialist) obviously Steve Kerr's championships then come into play so show that he is a vastly superior player.

Now since Shaq and Kobe are close (career wise, not during 3 peat years) 5 championships for Kobe and being a superior defensive player may be what puts him over Shaq and his 4 championships and higher peak.

No, when you compare players, you compare players. Not what their teams won. It's pretty simple, really.

[Wile E. Coyote]

No, when you compare players, you compare players. Not what their teams won. It's pretty simple, really.

That's never been true in professional sports. Winners are always revered more.

[Gongxi]

Are we talking about more revered? Quick- who's the better hitter, Ted Williams or Reggie Jackson?

[sp6r=underrated]

Are we talking about more revered? Quick- who's the better hitter, Ted Williams or Reggie Jackson?

Gongxi, I sympathize with your position but you take it to far. Baseball is basically an individual sport played by teams. Players have almost no impact on their teammate's performances. Basketball isn't like that.

[Gongxi]

But the point is the same: the greatness of a player doesn't depend on how everyone else on his team plays.

[Wile E. Coyote]

But the point is the same: the greatness of a player doesn't depend on how everyone else on his team plays.

Wrong.

[kobethegoat]

But the point is the same: the greatness of a player doesn't depend on how everyone else on his team plays.

obviously youre very new to this basketball thing

[tsherkin]

wrote:I think people get really attached to Bird's 3 year peak (albeit an AMAZING peak) and overrate him for that reason. But remember a) the league was MUCH faster pace, his numbers wouldn't look nearly as good in today's league b) 3 years don't make a career.

Apart from b), which is at least somewhat true, it behooves one to mention this:

Bird's 3-year peak (85-86 through 87-88) at average pace for 2010 would look like this, adjusted for pace:

1986: 23.6p ppg, 9.3 rpg, 6.2 apg.
1987: 26.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 7.2 apg
1988: 28.3 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 5.8 apg

The pace doesn't change his numbers all that much.

Consider. In 86, he goes from 26/10/7 to 24/9/6. Then from 28/9/7.5 to 26/9/7, then from 30/9/6 to 28/9/6. The numbers don't change a whole lot based on pace because the Celtics were actually quite slow compared to their peers and as a result, the number of possessions and easy baskets and everything doesn't actually change all that much compared to his own era. Certainly some, but Bird wasn't in the habit of getting a lot of easy buckets anyway, he spent most of his time scrapping in the post, moving off-ball and taking heat checks, so it's not like he was hitting the layup line on the regular to pad his stats.

With those numbers, he'd still be easily one of the 2 or 3 best players in the league, and those numbers likely understate his rebounding because he wouldn't be playing with McHale and Parish in today's league. Bird's TRB% in his first five seasons, before McHale was a regular starter, weren't that far from Troy Murphy's, which is pretty damned good for a combo forward.

There is no doubt that Bird was a dominant player and need I remind people that there are still clear examples of guys playing at a high level without exceptional athleticism even in today's league? Bird was pretty quick end to end and quick compared to PFs and tall 3s. Dirk and Nash are both contemporary examples of players who have no need of elite hops or outstanding quickness to get the job done. Fundamental skills (especially shooting ability) and basketball IQ are enough. Bird would shred the league just as he did in his own time.

[pancakes3]

I think people get really attached to Bird's 3 year peak (albeit an AMAZING peak) and overrate him for that reason. But remember a) the league was MUCH faster pace, his numbers wouldn't look nearly as good in today's league b) 3 years don't make a career.

would you say the same about shaq, or hakeem?

[semi-sentient]

Just out of curiosity, what would Kobe's numbers have looked like from 2005-06 through 2007-08 if adjusted for pace using the years that Bird had his 3-year peak?

[SDChargers#1]

Remember I never said Bird wasn't good. I actually had him listed as 8th on my all time greats list.

What I take issue with are people who rank him as good or better than Magic, Shaq, and Duncan (and maybe soon Kobe).

As much as Gongxi would like to argue otherwise team accomplishments absolutely matter when it comes to ranking basketball players. There is a reason John Stockton, Karl Malone, and Charles Barkley are listed a good deal lower on the All Time lists compared to their numbers...They couldn't win the whole thing.

Bird was an absolutely fabulous player. for about 8-9 years (which is great, but when comparing to the others I mentioned you have to factor in longevity). Duncan has been great for 12 years (with this year really being his first sub Duncan year). Shaq was great for 11 years (with another 3 years of huge impact). Magic was great for 12 years.

If you combine that with the fact that all 3 have more accomplishments than Bird. And I think you have an open and shut case.

Duncan the one player whose numbers don't quite compare to the other 3 makes up for it, by being EASILY the best defender amongst them.

would you say the same about shaq, or hakeem?

Absolutely, except they don't apply in the same way. The pace fell off a bit for both players (maybe not Hakeem in his early career), and they both had MUCH greater longevity. Shaq was DOMINATING, for a TEN YEAR STRETCH. Not 3-4 years, but TEN years. Hakeem was great for 13 years, but really only had 3-4 DOMINATING years. His longevity is greater than Bird, but considering his accomplishments aren't as great as Bird's I have him listed lower on my all time list.

Once again, Greatest of All Time as of right now....

1) Michael Jordan
2) Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3) Magic Johnson
4) Bill Russell
5) Wilt Chamberlain
6) Shaquille Oneal
7) Tim Duncan
8 ) Larry Bird
9) Kobe Bryant
10) Hakeem Olajuwon

[semi-sentient]

I really like that list, and I think it's time we all made a push to do away with the idea of an "Immortal 6". There is no reason to lock up the top 6 spots when we have players like Duncan and Kobe still performing at a high level and adding to their resume. Never mind that LeBron, with some hardware, can potentially dislodge some of those guys.

[microfib4thewin]

Again, what rationale is there for Kobe to be above Duncan and Shaq with a 5th title? Saying that he will have more rings than both of them has never been a good argument because his role during the 3 peat was less than both Shaq and Duncan. Shaq and Duncan has spearheaded their team for 11 years, Shaq has been a good second option for two years, and Duncan is just entering that phase. Kobe has been a better second option than old Shaq and Duncan, but has only led his team as the best player for 6 years. That 5 year of difference cannot simply be made up with another ring because there is no evidence to suggest the young Kobe can win with a run of the mill allstar center back then like he does now.