Where does all this Kobe / Lakers hate stem from?

[Slava]

What's even funnier is a guy that worships Nash ranking players by PER. Nash's best single season PER is 23.8, which isn't even in the top 250 on basketball reference. Guys like Pau, Ginobli, Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway and even Brook Lopez have had better single season PERs. That doesn't make his 2 MVP seasons any less important.

I agree that Duncan is at the same level if not slightly better than Kobe for his career but pointing out that Kobe's PER and win shares are inferior to Chris Paul, McGrady and Wade is laughable in this context.

[ROballer]

Gotta love stats.

Yup...they obviously tell the whole story

[andrewww]

kobe's shot selection has always been his biggest weakness and the biggest difference between him and MJ imo.

When he's on, you can make the argument that there's no better volume scorer in NBA history barring maybe wilt chamberlain. At the same time, there are games where he'll almost shoot you out of games but with the personnel around him, they'll be able to squeeze out close victories.

Having said that, a lot of the new school stars tend to value efficiency as the new trend and measuring stick, and kobe has never cared about the number of shot attempts he puts up because in his mind, he is putting pressure on the defense and opening up space for his teammates this way. It can work, but it isn't the smartest strategy when your shot isn't falling and that's why every so often you'll get these 10-35 FG kind of nights from him.

In a sense, kobe's impact has a bit of wilt chamblerlain in him. Wilt could be both a terror on offense and defense in a dominant way, but their skillset relative to their positions is second to none and as such, they were both so confident in their abilities that it sometimes takes away from "making their teammates better" which is kind of like the anti magic johnson, and they'd hoist up shots that most mortals wouldn't even think of taking but they're so talented that they can justify making that shot from time to time.

at his peak, i also tend to think kobe is severely underrated because there's no clear definitive "peak season" from him if you will. in my opinion, the best 2-way version of kobe was in 2003, but offensively 2006-07 speaks for itself and those were teams where he really DID have to score to keep them in games. When you see 2008 as kobe's "peak" season, then you begin to understand why he's underrated in this regard.

oh and of course duncan is on the same tier as kobe, but those who say duncan didn't have to volume score should be more specific...in short, he could volume score when called upon in the playoffs but historically duncan's efficiency has taken a big dip when he's in a position where he has to carry the scoring load like kobe (which is one reason why i rate hakeem above duncan as an individual player).

[Sedale Threatt]

Gotta love stats.

Yup...they obviously tell the whole story

They don't. Without one, definitive measure, it's a lot like piecing together fragments of ancient history to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

That said, the attitude that, well, F these stats because they don't support my unsubstantiated opinion is yet another reason to add to the discussion.

Outside of his scoring average, there's absolutely nothing that suggests Kobe was head and shoulders above anybody, at any point of his career.

[TyCobb]

So how many championships did Kobe cost the Lakers?

[Sedale Threatt]

So how many championships did Kobe cost the Lakers?

I've seen critics try to pin 04 and 08 on him. I don't subscribe to that, but you can make the case. Particularly with 04. Besides, I don't see what this has to do with anything. How many titles did Duncan cost the Spurs?

EDIT: For clarification, there's really no case for 08. We got beat by a better team, and he was our best player. The 04 series, I think again we were beaten by a better team, and were too beat up at that point, but he was unquestionably terrible. I don't hold that against him, for the aforementioned reasons.

[TyCobb]

The point of professional ball is winning titles. Thats how dominance is defined in my book. Whether it looks pretty or not falls under the category of who to be a fan of.

[Sedale Threatt]

The point of professional ball is winning titles. Thats how dominance is defined in my book. Whether it looks pretty or not falls under the category of who to be a fan of.

So basically the "ringz" argument, huh?

As important as they are to assessing players in a sport like basketball, where one individual can make such a massive impact, championships are also hugely dependent on factors outside of a players control.

Look no further than Kobe's career. He went from winning titles, to missing the playoffs, to winning titles. Was that his fault, or do you think maybe that had something to do with the quality of his teammates?

I give Kobe absolutely full credit for being the ultimate competitor, and a spectacularly great player, and a true champion. But how many titles do you think LeBron would have right now if he got to play with prime Shaq, too?

I don't raise that point to take anything away from him, but to further illustrate how circumstantial championships can be, and why they fall far short as THE measure.

[TyCobb]

It should be much easier ti build around a perfect teammate and such an efficient player such as Duncan. This is why I rate Kobe over Duncan because of his will to win despite his glaring deficiencies.

[swag2011]

Game 6, WCF, 2002. It essentially solidified a mindset that the Lakers were the beneficiaries of some dubious calls and preferential treatment. At the time it seemed like the league was trying to market them as the reincarnation of the 90s Bulls, which wasn't helped by the numerous Kobe/MJ comparisons. The fact that this game was later used in the Donaghy fallout didn't help matters any.

I can't speak for others, but as a Boston fan, I respect you guys and Kobe. However, some of the statements (coming from people like Magic, no less) about how he's the greatest Laker of all time are unbelievable. Great player, top 20 (maybe 15), sure. But I'd say West, Magic, Kareem, and Shaq all have him beat in terms of legacy (I don't count Wilt as I wasn't around then, and his best days weren't with the Lakers anyway). There's no shame in that.

Why is it so unbelievable that Kobe is arguably the greatest Laker of all time? This is where i feel it's something only Laker fans can understand. He's been here HALF of his life, literally. Owns just about every Laker record possible for him to have. He helped bring 5 championships. And please don't even start the sidekick or carried argument because if you do, that will completely make anything else you said invalid. He has numerous records. He has kept the lakers relevant, even during the time period where the Lakers were bad. Not to mention his international fame. People watch the Lakers for Kobe, whether you like him or not (not saying you don't, just making a point)

In terms of LAKER legacy, the only ones that have a debate with Kobe for the best is Magic and West. As of now, i have Magic, Kobe, then West. However, if kobe were to win another ring, i'd personally put him above Magic, due to his insane longevity at a high level. There are almost interchangeable for me at this point.

and i'll just have to agree to disagree with your personal ranking, because it is your personal ranking after all.

[ILOVEIT]

it comes from being good

Nah...not true. I never hated the Bulls.

In my opinion it's because Kobe felt it was more important to prove he could win without Shaq then win period. Baiscally Lakers best player is a duche bag. I totally respect Magic and the Lakers of old. Loved watching them too.

And in the recent years it felt like the NBA was working so damn hard at keeping the Lakers legit....Gasol trade (at the time) was a joke. The last run of bias foul calling to keep the Lakers in the playoffs was obvious.

Lakers with Magic...very cool....fun to watch....Magic had charisma and big time game.

Kobe Lakers....an ego maniac/jerk trying desperately to be Mike.

[ILOVEIT]

A. He doesn't have an ounce of charisma. Swagger -- most definitely. But charisma, like a Magic Johnson or a Michael Jordan or even a Johnny Manziel? Not a bit. It's the reason so many of his mannerisms and qualities seem contrived, when in fact they almost certainly aren't.

.

Great point.

x 2

[Kilroy]

Not seeing the value of this thread on this forum.