Where does Kobe rank All-Time with another Repeat?

[Joseph17]

As of now, I would rank him right below Shaq. If he wins another title this year, I would rank him next to Shaq.

[Joseph17]

Well he never won anything or contended for anything with out Gasol and Shaq so I'm not sure. Kobe has been extremely lucky through out his NBA career.

And this is what Jordan won without Pippen:

[Joseph17]

All I'm gonna say is it's hilarious how two weeks ago Kobe wasn't even a top 10 player in the league anymore, now he's the impending GOAT again.

This is realgm aka the what have you done for me lately forum.

[Gongxi]

No. It leads to you missing the point, like you've been doing since this discussion started.

What is your point? I don't see you having a standard and then, through it, reaching the conclusion that Kobe is above Duncan and Shaq with a repeat. I see you being a really big Kobe fan, posters and all, and attempting to find ways in which you could rank them that way.

You're doing it backward, so no one's going to respect that.

[Jordan23Forever]

Jabbar and Russell are the only players to win titles 10+ years apart averaging 35 minutes a game. Kobe will join them if he wins it this year. That's not impressive longevity and productivity?

You keep harping on this, but why is it so impressive? Kobe came into an ideal situation at a VERY young age, won his first title very young alongside a top 6 player all time at his absolute peak, and is still not even 32 years old yet with a stacked team around him. I'm supposed to view this as some sort of immense accomplishment? Do you think none of the other top 10-15 players in history could have done the same under similar circumstances? I know the top 10 could. So I don't see how that's a feather in his cap.

[tha_rock220]

You keep harping on this, but why is it so impressive? Kobe came into an ideal situation at a VERY young age, won his first title very young alongside a top 6 player all time at his absolute peak, and is still not even 32 years old yet with a stacked team around him. I'm supposed to view this as some sort of immense accomplishment? Do you think none of the other top 10-15 players in history could have one the same under similar circumstances? I know the top 10 could. So I don't see how that's a feather in his cap.

I agree with this. The vast majority of Kobe's resume is always going to be based on how long he played. Nobody is ever going to look back and say he was the consensus best player in the NBA in a single season. That's why I don't think he can movie up the all time rankings any further. He'll just never be a more dominant, better basketball player than the guys ahead of him as great a player as he is.

With that out of the way, it's obvious that Kobe's place on the threepeat teams is becoming a sore point to Laker fans since Shaq left. The option 1A and 1B things are laughable. All anyone has to do is look at the Lakers' record without Kobe when they were champions. L.A. had a winning record without him. Sorry, but that isn't a first option.

[microfib4thewin]

Jabbar and Russell are the only players to win titles 10+ years apart averaging 35 minutes a game. Kobe will join them if he wins it this year. That's not impressive longevity and productivity?

It was fun to speculate back then how Kobe could surpass Russell's record when he got his third ring at the age of 24. But a 6 year drought including a complete breakup of the team, 3 years of mediocrity, and nearly getting traded, it doesn't seem to hold much weight compared to what Russell and KAJ did. Russell was leading his team to winning titles every year for his entire career. There is no gap of mediocrity or unrest that caused a key player to get traded. In Kareem's case, even though he had a 9 year gap from his first and second title, he had one of the most dominate peak of all time and he has played at the allstar level for nearly two decades. In terms of team success, Russell dwarfs Kobe. In terms of peak and longevity, Kareem dwarfs Kobe, and at the moment he still had the argument for better team success as the leading player of 3 titles. Kobe would still only win his second title as the main man if he succeeds this year. Exclusive companies like this doesn't mean much when the situations for these players are completely different.

I think this potential ring and Kobe's accomplishments this year will vault him over Bird and Shaq, but not Duncan.

Since I know you like to ignore peak play for your convenience I won't argue about Bird. How does Kobe surpass Shaq? He has the same amount of scoring titles, MVP, All-NBA 1st, and would still have 1-2 more Finals MVP as well as 3 more allstar selections. There is no argument that Kobe pass Shaq with a 5th ring.

[kobethegoat]

lol Kobes teams is staked?

Look at the teams that other top 10s were on, they were way more stacked than what Kobe had.

Bird had Hall of Famers coming off the Bench FFS

[kobethegoat]

For Comparisons sake,

The Lakers 80s had FOUR #1 Overall draft picks (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Thompson) and one #4 draft pick(Scott) on the SAME team.

Tell me how that is possible in this current era. That is an all star team, there are no weak links at all. Are you telling me Kobes championship winning team is more stacked than that?

[Wile E. Coyote]

You keep harping on this, but why is it so impressive? Kobe came into an ideal situation at a VERY young age, won his first title very young alongside a top 6 player all time at his absolute peak, and is still not even 32 years old yet with a stacked team around him. I'm supposed to view this as some sort of immense accomplishment?

Kobe didn't come into any ideal situation. What had the Lakers done before he got there? What did the Lakers do after he got there for a few years?

The answer: NOTHING! It took four years after he was drafted until they won a title. Shaq hadn't won anything up until that point either.

His team this year (or last year, for that matter) is not stacked by any measure compared to other champions. This year they have a point guard who hardly averages 3 assists, a small forward who provides good to great defense but shake offense, a brittle center, an inconsistent sixth man, and little else of substancial value. The only other very good player they have is Pau Gasol.

Do you think none of the other top 10-15 players in history could have done the same under similar circumstances? I know the top 10 could. So I don't see how that's a feather in his cap.

Didn't I say that Jabbar and Russell were the other two?

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think this potential ring and Kobe's accomplishments this year will vault him over Bird and Shaq, but not Duncan.

Since I know you like to ignore peak play for your convenience I won't argue about Bird. How does Kobe surpass Shaq? He has the same amount of scoring titles, MVP, All-NBA 1st, and would still have 1-2 more Finals MVP as well as 3 more allstar selections. There is no argument that Kobe pass Shaq with a 5th ring.

I try to stick to the formula I've devised and it's played out pretty well so far. I believe the only major difference between the two is the number of Defensive teams they have been on.

Right now, this is the top ten according to my list:

Career Points:
1. Michael Jordan 395
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 375
3. Bill Russell 355
4. Wilt Chamberlain 336
5. Tim Duncan 230*
6. Magic Johnson 218
7. Shaquille O’Neal 204*
8. Larry Bird 202
9. Kobe Bryant 196*
10. Bob Cousy 196
10. John Havlicek 196

If Kobe wins the ring with Finals MVP, it would look like this:

Career Points:
1. Michael Jordan 395
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 375
3. Bill Russell 355
4. Wilt Chamberlain 336
5. Tim Duncan 230*
6. Magic Johnson 218
7. Kobe Bryant 212*
8. Shaquille O’Neal 204*
9. Larry Bird 202
10. Bob Cousy 196
10. John Havlicek 196

Click the link in my sig for how I devised the list.

[Dez Bryant]

Damn 22 pages.... the real question is where does he rank with another 3 peat which I think is likely. Two 3 peats put him in the top 5 imo

two 3-peats in the modern era will make Kobe GOAT status, on par with Jordan.

I cant see how anyone can argue this. Kobe hasn't played on teams that were stacked like the 80s Lakers(like Magic was on), the first 3 peat was Shaq, Kobe and 10 role players. The 2nd(potential) 3peat is Kobe, Gasol, Odom and role players. I give rings won in the modern era far higher than those won in the 80s and earlier, because back in those days the title either was LA's or Bostons by default.

wow man just stop. Kobe has the best teammates in the league 2-6 i don't think it's debateable either. the first 3 peat, he was had the most dominant center of the last 30+ years. you can't really use this argument. especially for the 80's league, there were less teams so of course the top teams were more stacked. the 80's c's, lakers, and pistons would probably be the clearcut best teams in todays league......that's just how it was back then without all the expansion.

[Dez Bryant]

lol Kobes teams is staked?

Look at the teams that other top 10s were on, they were way more stacked than what Kobe had.

Bird had Hall of Famers coming off the Bench FFS

again you look at things in poor context.

bird was in a league that wasn't watered down so his opponents were more stacked.

today all you need is two guys essentially.

back then two great players wouldn't win, you needed 3-5

[Original Baller]

if Kobe wins ring #5 then my top 10 goes:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Russell
6. Kobe
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Hakeem

if he somehow 3peats and gets to 6 titles then he's top 3

get 7 titles......and we're talking possible GOAT

[JordansBulls]

if Kobe wins ring #5 then my top 10 goes:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Russell
6. Kobe
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Hakeem

if he somehow 3peats and gets to 6 titles then he's top 3

get 7 titles......and we're talking possible GOAT

I would put Russell where Magic is. But other than that that is a pretty good list.

[Original Baller]

I would put Russell where Magic is. But other than that that is a pretty good list.

I like Russell and give him mad respect but its hard because he played during an era that was simply not as competitive as the 80's. His 11 titles deserve respect but I think his lack of dominance offensively plus the fact he played on stacked teams in a weak era makes him lower than Magic.

If we're talking simply accomplishments then his 11 titles and 5 MVP's make him unanimous GOAT but once put in context I think he's not as great as a couple of players who had less championships than him.

[KNICKS1970]

I think he enters the discussion whether he should pass Duncan, Bird, and Shaq. He leapfrogs Hakeem with a repeat in my book, if he hasn't already (I haven't thought much about this since last year). Hate has to be put aside at some point. Kobe has one of the unique and special careers in NBA history, winning 3 titles as the sidekick and possibly 2 titles as the top dog.

I realize it's exciting to talk about, but time and space should really be given to properly assess Kobe's place in history. I've been on these boards for a long time, so I remember when it looked like Karl Malone was gonna break the all time scoring record, so people were quick to say he was better than Hakeem and one of the 10 best ever.

In the proper context, after all the hype and excitement dies down somewhat, I think people will be hard pressed to say a guy with only 1 MVP is one of the Top 5 players ever, especially considering the guys currently in the discussion are Russell (5 MVPs), Chamberlain (4 MVPs), Kareem (6 MVPs), Magic (3 MVPs), Bird (3 MVPs) and Jordan (5 MVPs). MVPs are a measurement of a player standing out over his peers, and that is a factor as well. It's not the end all be all, just like rings or stats aren't the entire argument. I've always thought in these all-time discussions, everything should be looked at.

Also, things have to be put in the proper context. Each era in NBA history is different. People should look more at how a player performed in the era in which he played, rather than try to predict how people would have played if they magically transported to a different time. The arguments about how Kobe would have played in the 80s or how Magic would have played in today's game are funny to me, because you could argue about that crap all day and not come to a conclusion. It's fun to talk about, but it's mostly irrelevent. There's no way to know.

[KNICKS1970]

I would put Russell where Magic is. But other than that that is a pretty good list.

I like Russell and give him mad respect but its hard because he played during an era that was simply not as competitive as the 80's. His 11 titles deserve respect but I think his lack of dominance offensively plus the fact he played on stacked teams in a weak era makes him lower than Magic.

If we're talking simply accomplishments then his 11 titles and 5 MVP's make him unanimous GOAT but once put in context I think he's not as great as a couple of players who had less championships than him.

Whenever someone tries to say "Oh he played in a weak era", it makes me laugh because I've seen the "weak era" argument used to describe every single era from the 50s all the way up to today. Let's just agree that each era is different and has its own strengths and weaknesses. There have been great teams and great players in every single decade. Russell had to go up against the greatest offensive force the game has ever seen. Kobe had to play in an era full of great wing players. Magic played in an era where it seemed like every great team was an all-star team. Competitiveness has never been a problem in the NBA.

There's no way to project how Kobe would have done in the 60s, or what Russell would have done today. The best way to look at these things is to look at how they performed in the eras they played in.

[Shot Clock]

In the proper context, after all the hype and excitement dies down somewhat, I think people will be hard pressed to say a guy with only 1 MVP is one of the Top 5 players ever, especially considering the guys currently in the discussion are Russell (5 MVPs), Chamberlain (4 MVPs), Kareem (6 MVPs), Magic (3 MVPs), Bird (3 MVPs) and Jordan (5 MVPs). MVPs are a measurement of a player standing out over his peers, and that is a factor as well. It's not the end all be all, just like rings or stats aren't the entire argument. I've always thought in these all-time discussions, everything should be looked at.

Right, rings are important to get you in the discussion but once you have a couple the argument about a good player that can't win it all goes out. Multiple rings are a product of a good team, ownership, coaching, luck, etc. It's not really a measure of a player. But I don't see a guy who isn't the clear cut best in his own time ever being considered GOAT.

The names at the top have a pretty solid basis for an argument. 3 MVP's would seem to be the entry fee.

[KNICKS1970]

Right, rings are important to get you in the discussion but once you have a couple the argument about a good player that can't win it all goes out. Multiple rings are a product of a good team, ownership, coaching, luck, etc. It's not really a measure of a player. But I don't see a guy who isn't the clear cut best in his own time ever being considered GOAT.

The names at the top have a pretty solid basis for an argument. 3 MVP's would seem to be the entry fee.

Rings are important because in the end, that's what everyone is playing for. And really, the truly great players are ones that championship teams and dynasties were built around. Let's not dismiss winning, because basketball is a team sport and championships are the ultimate display of a great player using his talents to work with other (and in most cases, lesser) talents in a team concept.