Can you name 15 players in NBA history better than Kobe?

[See5]

This thread wouldn't be so bad if half the posters didn't have him on the borderline or just out of the top 15, and the other half didn't have him top 5 easily.

Well, go halfway between the two and you have Kobe at #9-10 where most reasonable people have him on their all-time lists.

[coolnerd88]

This thread wouldn't be so bad if half the posters didn't have him on the borderline or just out of the top 15, and the other half didn't have him top 5 easily.

Well the point was to try and see. I have him at 11 on my list but I provided a 15 man list with vaild opinions on why I chose that 15...if others would have sticked to the premises of the thread..it would have been a great thread but as always...........


Kobe, reading comprehension, and Kobe stalkers don't add up

[jaypo]

FinalsMVP- so the 4th is the only quarter that counts? Okay, then. So let's throw out Shaq's ppg up until the 4th. Is there really a need for Kobe to take over? No, because the games would be blowouts in favor of their opponents! BTW, who scored 9 points in the 4th to fuel the comeback in the 00 WCF game 7? You know, the alley oop game against Portland?? My friend, it wasn't Kobe!

And I'm not going to get into another discussion where people say I bash Kobe, but by design, Shaq was the 1st option- the offense ran thru him! And even if you say that Kobe was the #1 option for the entire 4th quarter, then Shaq was the #1 option 75% of the time! That is a fact. I'm not making this up. It came straight from Phil Jackson and Tex Winters.

And on another thread, I'm pretty sure I posted numbers from the serieses that you mentioned. And if you call putting up a few more points on a lesser fg% better, well then, so be it. But Shaq shot better, grabbed more boards, and anchored the defense (#1 in the league in 01). So it depends on your definition of "better"!

One thing to remember about the whole "Kobe ruled the WCF" is that Shaq still dominated in those serieses, although it was tough because of the competition. And Shaq put up historical numbers in the finals those years, so people around here are saying things like "Shaq put up 35 and 15 against the weak Finals opponents but he sucked in the WCF which were the REAL finals". Well, look at his numbers in the WCF. You call that sucking? Well, let me show you how wrong you really are:

WCF, 2001- Shaq- 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.75 APG, 1.25 bpg on 54% shooting
Kobe- 33.25 ppg, 7 rpg, 7 apg, .75 bpr on 50.75%.

So Shaq scores 6 less points on better fg%, more rebounds and blocks, but Kobe was better? Well, maybe in 02. Let's see:

WCF, 2002- Shaq- 30.29 ppg, 13.14 rpg, 1.57 apg, 2.43 bpg, 53.67 fg%
Kobe- 27.14 ppg, 6.71 rpg, 3.57 apg, 1.14 bpg, on 42.10 fg%.

Kobe really blew Shaq out of the water there didn't he? I mean, he averaged more assists, right? OH, maybe the fact that Shaq scored more, shot 11% higher from the field, grabbed twice as many boards and twice as many blocks proves you wrong.

[bastillon]

OP: players I'd take ahead of Kobe to start a franchise... MJ, Dream, Russell, Magic, Bird, Karl Malone, Duncan, KG, Shaq, DRob, KAJ, LeBron. that's 12. there's about dozen other guys that I'd think about and are on the same level too.

[Shot Clock]

Myth: Kobe Bryant was the number 1 option in the 4th quarter - the most important quarter. Myth: Kobe was better than Shaquille in the WC playoffs in 2001 and 2002.

Fact: Shaq was primary option, in what may have been their biggest game during their title run, Game 7 vs Sac in crunch time. Fact Kobe didn't have a FG in the 4th or OT......(4 pts in the last 17 minutes)

[jaypo]

Basti and Shot Clock- good points.

Shot clock- thanks for showing that stat about Kobe in the 4th. There was this misconception that Kobe would just take over in the 4th because Shaq couldn't. However, in the 4th, Shaq would rest the first few minutes regularly, so Kobe became the 1st option while Shaq was off the floor. So I guess, in a sense, he was the 1st option. But when Shaq was in the game, the offense went thru him. And in 2000-2003, Shaq was the most dominant force in the game no matter what quarter it was- see 2000 WCF!

[italianleather]

WCF, 2001- Shaq- 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.75 APG, 1.25 bpg on 54% shooting
Kobe- 33.25 ppg, 7 rpg, 7 apg, .75 bpr on 50.75%.

So Shaq scores 6 less points on better fg%, more rebounds and blocks, but Kobe was better? Well, maybe in 02. Let's see:

WCF, 2002- Shaq- 30.29 ppg, 13.14 rpg, 1.57 apg, 2.43 bpg, 53.67 fg%
Kobe- 27.14 ppg, 6.71 rpg, 3.57 apg, 1.14 bpg, on 42.10 fg%.

Kobe really blew Shaq out of the water there didn't he? I mean, he averaged more assists, right? OH, maybe the fact that Shaq scored more, shot 11% higher from the field, grabbed twice as many boards and twice as many blocks proves you wrong.

Shaq is the main guy in the 3peat Lakers. But there is no need to present half truths during arguments.

[jaypo]

WCF, 2001- Shaq- 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.75 APG, 1.25 bpg on 54% shooting
Kobe- 33.25 ppg, 7 rpg, 7 apg, .75 bpr on 50.75%.

So Shaq scores 6 less points on better fg%, more rebounds and blocks, but Kobe was better? Well, maybe in 02. Let's see:

WCF, 2002- Shaq- 30.29 ppg, 13.14 rpg, 1.57 apg, 2.43 bpg, 53.67 fg%
Kobe- 27.14 ppg, 6.71 rpg, 3.57 apg, 1.14 bpg, on 42.10 fg%.

Kobe really blew Shaq out of the water there didn't he? I mean, he averaged more assists, right? OH, maybe the fact that Shaq scored more, shot 11% higher from the field, grabbed twice as many boards and twice as many blocks proves you wrong.

Shaq is the main guy in the 3peat Lakers. But there is no need to present half truths during arguments.

What half truths are those?

[Tesla]

Why do people continue to use FG% as their main way to compare efficeny? Especially versus a guy that can't shoot FT's worth jack and a guy that can (and not counting 3pointers, perimeter efficency vs interior, etc).

Shaq was undoubtedbly more efficent scorer than Kobe throughout their careers, Shaqs one of the most efficent ever, but the gap isn't as big as FG% would suggest, especially in that 2001 WCF where Kobe shot 51% from the field... I bet if you crunched the numbers Kobe was actually a more efficent and prolific scorer for that series than Shaq... but hey thats only one series out of 5+ years... so that doesnt really proove much of anything. Kobe was awesome, but Shaq was better... doesn't take away from what either player did though.

[italianleather]

For starters, why leave out steals and turnovers?

"So Shaq scores 6 less points on better fg%, more rebounds and blocks, but Kobe was better? "
Kobe had more assists and steals.

"Kobe really blew Shaq out of the water there didn't he? I mean, he averaged more assists, right? OH, maybe the fact that Shaq scored more, shot 11% higher from the field, grabbed twice as many boards and twice as many blocks proves you wrong."
Conversely, Kobe also had more than twice the assists and steals.

Shaq avg higher TOs on both series as well.

[italianleather]

Why do people continue to use FG% as their main way to compare efficeny? Especially versus a guy that can't shoot FT's worth jack and a guy that can (and not counting 3pointers, perimeter efficency vs interior, etc).

Shaq was undoubtedbly more efficent scorer than Kobe throughout their careers, Shaqs one of the most efficent ever, but the gap isn't as big as FG% would suggest, especially in that 2001 WCF where Kobe shot 51% from the field... I bet if you crunched the numbers Kobe was actually a more efficent and prolific scorer for that series than Shaq... but hey thats only one series out of 5+ years... so that doesnt really proove much of anything. Kobe was awesome, but Shaq was better... doesn't take away from what either player did though.

Exactly.

'01 WCF TS%: Kobe - 57.1% Shaq - 54.7%
'02 WCF TS%: Kobe - 49.1% Shaq - 56.3%

Like I said previously, Shaq is the guy in LA, but both Kobe and Shaq form one of the most dominant duos in NBA history. Lets not diminish either of those accomplishments via exaggeration or half-truths.

[jaypo]

Not trying to diminish either. But I'm trying to dispel the common notion that many people spew around here- that Kobe was the reason the Lakers won the finals because he, not Shaq, dominated the WCF which were "the real finals" and Shaq beat up on inferior Eastern Conferenc centers. You see, when the 3 finals MVP's are brought up by people, the Kobe homers instantly bring up that Shaq won those because he had to battle Deke and Tod McCullough. And they claim that Kobe played out of his mind in the WCF's (as if Shaq didn't). So it is an attempt to diminish Shaq's 3 finals MVP's, and I'm trying to disspel that rumor. As you can see, Shaq played very well in those SAME WCF's, and outplayed Kobe for the most part. So Shaq got to beat up on inferior players in the finals, but EVERY player was inferior to Shaq during those years!

[cloud king]

Not trying to diminish either. But I'm trying to dispel the common notion that many people spew around here- that Kobe was the reason the Lakers won the finals because he, not Shaq, dominated the WCF which were "the real finals" and Shaq beat up on inferior Eastern Conferenc centers. You see, when the 3 finals MVP's are brought up by people, the Kobe homers instantly bring up that Shaq won those because he had to battle Deke and Tod McCullough. And they claim that Kobe played out of his mind in the WCF's (as if Shaq didn't). So it is an attempt to diminish Shaq's 3 finals MVP's, and I'm trying to disspel that rumor. As you can see, Shaq played very well in those SAME WCF's, and outplayed Kobe for the most part. So Shaq got to beat up on inferior players in the finals, but EVERY player was inferior to Shaq during those years!

thats not the common notion at all, the common notion here is that Kobe was #2 and his rings don't count.

which is crazy when you look at their playoff stats.

now, shaq was more of a #1 than Kobe, thats true, but Kobe put up #1-like numbers and that led to their feud.

so if you acknowledge that kobe's 5 rings count, then we can talk about their roles

[bastillon]

thats not the common notion at all, the common notion here is that Kobe was #2 and his rings don't count.

which is crazy when you look at their playoff stats.

now, shaq was more of a #1 than Kobe, thats true, but Kobe put up #1-like numbers and that led to their feud.

so if you acknowledge that kobe's 5 rings count, then we can talk about their roles

Shaq was the very reason Kobe put up those numbers in the first place. we've seen how Kobe did without Shaq pre rules changes and it wasn't the same as with him. he made it a lot easier for Bryant. granted Kobe was more than a typical 2nd option guy, but so was Pippen given his defensive dominance yet nobody seems to make it seem like he won 6 legit rings.

[jaypo]

Not trying to diminish either. But I'm trying to dispel the common notion that many people spew around here- that Kobe was the reason the Lakers won the finals because he, not Shaq, dominated the WCF which were "the real finals" and Shaq beat up on inferior Eastern Conferenc centers. You see, when the 3 finals MVP's are brought up by people, the Kobe homers instantly bring up that Shaq won those because he had to battle Deke and Tod McCullough. And they claim that Kobe played out of his mind in the WCF's (as if Shaq didn't). So it is an attempt to diminish Shaq's 3 finals MVP's, and I'm trying to disspel that rumor. As you can see, Shaq played very well in those SAME WCF's, and outplayed Kobe for the most part. So Shaq got to beat up on inferior players in the finals, but EVERY player was inferior to Shaq during those years!

thats not the common notion at all, the common notion here is that Kobe was #2 and his rings don't count.

which is crazy when you look at their playoff stats.

now, shaq was more of a #1 than Kobe, thats true, but Kobe put up #1-like numbers and that led to their feud.

so if you acknowledge that kobe's 5 rings count, then we can talk about their roles

I acknowledge every one of his rings, and they all count. No question. But there is a common notion that Kobe won the difficult WCF's while Shaq coasted to the finals MVP's because of weak competition in the finals. I've heard it a thousand times on these boards. And Kobe will just have to live with the fact that his 1st 3 rings came in years where his teammate was the best in the league as Shaq will have to live with the fact that he won his 4th as a 2nd option. If Shaq had put up numbers slightly under DWade in 06, would we even argue who was 1 or 2 in that pecking order? Because I can make the same case- Shaq's play vs. Detroit in the ECF is the main reason they got thru Detroit and to the finals. So for all those that play the "Kobe won the WCF" card, then I play that card. Watch and see how much criticism I get for that!

The truth is that both put up great performances in every series. They don't win without either. But the fact is that the offense ran thru Shaq. Period. That came from Phil Jackson's mouth. Kobe put up great numbers, but he did so as the 2nd offensive option. There is no way to deny that. Hell, I remember being amazed at what he was doing while I watched those serieses. But it still didn't change the fact that Shaq was the leader of that squad and the offense ran thru him.

[mopper8]

the common notion here is that Kobe was #2 and his rings don't count.

This is a total strawman. There is a difference between (a)recognizing Kobe's role with the Lakers and acknowledging Shaq's presence as playing a very very important, indispensable piece of the Lakers' 3-peat and (b) saying Kobe's rings don't count.

Just from a discussion in another thread, I noted that I found Duncan's 4 titles more impressive than Kobe's 5. That doesn't mean I was not "counting" the 3-peat rings, I am simply acknowledging the obvious. As I noted in that thread, there is a reason people don't consider Hondo a 7-ring SG/SF...

[jaypo]

Of course his rings count. But they are viewed more the way Pippen's rings are than Jordan's rings. Same with Shaq's 4th- Wade was the man in that finals series, but Shaq played a huge role in the ECF.

I also find Duncan's more impressive than Kobe's (after Shaq left), because Duncan didn't have another top 10 all time talent (although he did have DRob and some great role players) or the best supporting cast around him like Kobe did. But I find Kobe and Shaq's together more impressive than Duncan's because they did it in 3 peat fashion.

[Quincy]

Gasol is not a top-ten all-time talent.

Kobe's role during the 3-peat is far more important than 05-06 Shaq.

He was the second best player but was putting up 1st option numbers. Keep that in mind.

[bastillon]

Gasol is not a top-ten all-time talent.

Kobe's role during the 3-peat is far more important than 05-06 Shaq.

He was the second best player but was putting up 1st option numbers. Keep that in mind.

how is Kobe 00 putting any numbers close to 1st option ? he was barely #2 guy if you consider his choke act in the finals (or was it 01 ?).

Kobe 01 > Shaq 06 = Kobe 02 >> Kobe 00

[Quincy]

That's one of five seasons he played with Shaq. Let's not forget him coming up big in postseason. After that season the debate starts.