Why do people say Kobe has great longevity?

[john248]

Kobe does have a great longevity. There aren't many other players who played at a high level for so much time.

The problem are the Kobe stans who shove it into your face acting as if it were a feat that hadn't been done before at all, and because of that they overuse it in ranking Kobe all-time.
Yes, there hasn't been any other player producing the same scoring stats for so long, but is this what's it all about? Does Kobe 2013 really have more impact in making his team win than other players like (as examples) Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Karl Malone or Erving (including the ABA) have/had who played at least the same great 13-15 seasons? I don't see it, especially considering that Kobe abandoned playing defense to have the energy for the offensive end of the court.

So are you saying Kobe's longevity isn't great? Not many greats can say they're playing at a high level after 16 seasons. The list isn't long for guys who are at 15+ years and/or at the age of 33+ who are still able to be the #1 option while being a top 5-10 player in the league. He certainly isn't Frobe or the 2005-2009 version of himself anymore, but he's still playing at a high level.

Is Duncan even playing the same role as he did 6 years ago? Do you really feel that KG in his 3rd or 4th season as a Celtic is close to resembling KG in his prime? Even Erving wasn't putting up what Kobe did at the same age of 34. Malone almost defines longevity. But this isn't a knock to the above guys. They were all still very productive and higher calibur players. Kobe is also playing at a high level, and at least he can say that he's still a top 5 to 10 player in the league depending on who you ask.

great longevity = Michael Jordan. AS MVP, MVP, FMVP, scoring champ, NBA champ all at age 35.
Karl Malone. MVP in 1999 one month shy of his 36th birthday
Even Tim Duncan this year. Arguably the best player on the team that is 2 wins shy of the NBA finals.

Did you just count AS MVP?

[CBB_Fan]

Not looking at stats, I actually enjoyed what I saw from Kobe this year than I have since 2009. If he brought the same mentality he used when he stepped into more of a facilitator role this year his entire career, I think people would see him differently. It showed that he was willing and able to change his game when he thought it would help his team win, and it was honestly fun to watch.

[Masigond]

So are you saying Kobe's longevity isn't great? Not many greats can say they're playing at a high level after 16 seasons. The list isn't long for guys who are at 15+ years and/or at the age of 33+ who are still able to be the #1 option while being a top 5-10 player in the league. He certainly isn't Frobe or the 2005-2009 version of himself anymore, but he's still playing at a high level.

He is, and that's great indeed, but some people act as if he is the best player ever in his 16th season, based on his stats as no other player has ever scored that much that late in his career. There are 9 seasons of a player taking more than 19 FGAs per game when he is past his 12th year. 5 times Kobe, twice Jordan, and Alex English and Bernard King both once...
So the point is that there hasn't been any player before who maintained such a volume shooting that late in his career. I think that it's not necessarily the best for the Lakers still having a Kobe-centric offense. Especially if it's at the expense of his defensive effort.

Is Duncan even playing the same role as he did 6 years ago? Do you really feel that KG in his 3rd or 4th season as a Celtic is close to resembling KG in his prime? Even Erving wasn't putting up what Kobe did at the same age of 34. Malone almost defines longevity. But this isn't a knock to the above guys. They were all still very productive and higher calibur players. Kobe is also playing at a high level, and at least he can say that he's still a top 5 to 10 player in the league depending on who you ask.

They adapted to other roles and arguably their respective teams had it easier to find a better way to win and establish other good players. I don't think that Dwight seems to like playing the second fiddle to Kobe. Take the Spurs on the other hand: Duncan can't handle both defense and offense at the same time anymore, so there's room for Parker, and the team chemistry seems to be better.
So while Kobe does have great longevity indeed and is still playing on a high level, I think that the stats might lead some people to assume more of Kobe's actual game today than it might really be. The Lakers' injury worries of 2013 aside: The team was quite some disappointment before in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs. A top 5 player status should be taken with a grain of salt as I think that it is not that clear that Kobe is still consistently up there. Again: Especially considering that he can't be both a great scorer with good efficiency as well as a good defender at the same time anymore. So the stats are there, but the impact isn't necessarily higher than Duncan's or KG's (missed games because of injury aside) now.

[G35]

Because he DOES have great longevity. The problem for me is that longevity has become the end-on-be-all on this board when it comes to ranking players.

The truth is the absolute reverse of that statement.

People on this board ONLY care about peak. If you accomplish something outside of your top 4-5 years, it's considered almost irrelevant.

This is why people have LeBron in their top 5 and KG in their top 10.

Guys like Kareem, Kobe and Malone who have great longevity don't get nearly as much attention.

Kareem gets his due in the rankings. So does Kobe.

But for me, when we ask, "Who was the better player?" we're basically looking at players fully-formed and at the height of their powers.

.

This is the problem with peak.

Because now if you only consider players at the "peak" of their powers then

Wade
McGrady
Hakeem
Walton
Erving
Shaq
Rick Barry
Dirk
Barkley
Payton

etc etc etc should all be ranked higher than where they are.

Shaq at his peak is right there with KAJ/MJ battling for best player ever. He's knocked down because of his other years that were not as dominating.....

[Rasho_libre]

I hate on kobe in alot of threads. But no on can deny his longetivity is one of the best all time. Its a recipe of luck(very few severe injuries), work ethic and physical preparation in the off season

[RayBan-Sematra]

Magic played 32 games and started 9 but you're talking about including that season.
Kobe played 78 games (39 MPG at that) and you're not going to include his season.

If that doesn't stink like bias I need to get my nose checked.

Maybe I wasn't aware of that?
C'mon bro.

Yeah... I don't think I can count that year for Magic considering how many games he missed.

Still it might be worth mentioning that he was able to suit up for the playoffs and averaged
15 / 9 / 7apg on 57%TS.

It might sound strange to you but I'd rather my Star player miss most of the regular season but be healthy for the playoffs then visa-versa.

A team good enough to contend might be able to make the playoffs with their Star missing many games but they can't win the title without their Star player in the playoffs.

[tsherkin]

Maybe I wasn't aware of that?
C'mon bro.

No, Battle's right: you habitually do a poor job of research, so that one is on you.

Yeah... I don't think I can count that year for Magic considering how many games he missed.

[RayBan-Sematra]

that one is on you.

Yeah that one is on me.

[john248]

So are you saying Kobe's longevity isn't great? Not many greats can say they're playing at a high level after 16 seasons. The list isn't long for guys who are at 15+ years and/or at the age of 33+ who are still able to be the #1 option while being a top 5-10 player in the league. He certainly isn't Frobe or the 2005-2009 version of himself anymore, but he's still playing at a high level.

He is, and that's great indeed, but some people act as if he is the best player ever in his 16th season, based on his stats as no other player has ever scored that much that late in his career. There are 9 seasons of a player taking more than 19 FGAs per game when he is past his 12th year. 5 times Kobe, twice Jordan, and Alex English and Bernard King both once...
So the point is that there hasn't been any player before who maintained such a volume shooting that late in his career. I think that it's not necessarily the best for the Lakers still having a Kobe-centric offense. Especially if it's at the expense of his defensive effort.

Is Duncan even playing the same role as he did 6 years ago? Do you really feel that KG in his 3rd or 4th season as a Celtic is close to resembling KG in his prime? Even Erving wasn't putting up what Kobe did at the same age of 34. Malone almost defines longevity. But this isn't a knock to the above guys. They were all still very productive and higher calibur players. Kobe is also playing at a high level, and at least he can say that he's still a top 5 to 10 player in the league depending on who you ask.

They adapted to other roles and arguably their respective teams had it easier to find a better way to win and establish other good players. I don't think that Dwight seems to like playing the second fiddle to Kobe. Take the Spurs on the other hand: Duncan can't handle both defense and offense at the same time anymore, so there's room for Parker, and the team chemistry seems to be better.
So while Kobe does have great longevity indeed and is still playing on a high level, I think that the stats might lead some people to assume more of Kobe's actual game today than it might really be. The Lakers' injury worries of 2013 aside: The team was quite some disappointment before in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs. A top 5 player status should be taken with a grain of salt as I think that it is not that clear that Kobe is still consistently up there. Again: Especially considering that he can't be both a great scorer with good efficiency as well as a good defender at the same time anymore. So the stats are there, but the impact isn't necessarily higher than Duncan's or KG's (missed games because of injury aside) now.

First, what does anything you just said have to do with Kobe's longevity? It just sounds like you don't like the guy. Rather than focusing on his team's success, or lack thereof, there's no point in bringing up Dwight or trying to come up with excuses to diminish his play at this stage of his career.

Second, the fact of the matter remains that after 16 seasons and at the age of 34, he's still playing a high level of basketball which can't be said for a huge sum of players at either 16 seasons in or at the age of 34. The point is that no one expects 2013 Kobe to be like Frobe or the mid/late 2000s version of him even though you missed that. Of course he's going to lose athleticism and stamina. For the most part, no one really denies that he slacks on defense, at least on this forum. KG isn't putting out the offensive numbers he used to nor is he playing a huge number of minutes; however, that won't stop me from giving him props just because he's more limited to 1 aspect of his game in comparison to his past. That is just petty if I were to do that.

Lastly, when I think of longevity, it's to see how a player can still be productive as their careers go on. By that I mean, it's nice to see how a player's game evolves while still being a contributor while playing at a high level. We all know Jordan's game evolved as his midrange became more lethal and had a post-up that included an incredible fadeaway or how Malone had a nice midrange shot and a game where he didn't have to leave his feat much at all. Kobe isn't hugely different where iirc he's taking something like 100 less shots at the rim this past year than he did in 06 while being the playmaker on this team with Nash and Blake out for huge parts of the season.

His defense wouldn't have been as much of a game changer for the Lakers as it was for Dwight to get healthy/more mobility as the season progressed and for MDA to spend more than a half hour on team defense during practices. People want to harp on his defense which is fine since I agree in some ways. For guys like KG and Duncan, as big men, they will have far more impact on a defense than a perimeter defensive player. But you want your wing player to still be a dynamic playmaker which is ALSO hugely important.

Whether this injury Kobe has to his effectiveness down the line remains to be seen.

[Masigond]

First, what does anything you just said have to do with Kobe's longevity? It just sounds like you don't like the guy. Rather than focusing on his team's success, or lack thereof, there's no point in bringing up Dwight or trying to come up with excuses to diminish his play at this stage of his career.

Read my first posting. I didn't deny Kobe's longevity but said that there are some discussions about it as his fans often overrate it, in terms of Kobe's actual impact. Like ignoring that he was no real superstar before about 2001 - he was popular before as a flashy young player with loads of talent, and of course because of playing for the Lakers, thus getting All-Star votes and berths. But in 2000 he wasn't a bonafide superstar yet.
I just try to put some things in perspective. The discussion in the main board about Kobe being voted to the All-NBA First Team again is quite the same. He doesn't have that constant superstar impact anymore, so the actual height of his level should be disputed, just like his role on his team.
Please: A player often not moving at all on the defensive end is of course harming his team. There would have been a difference if Kobe had put some more effort in at least maintaining positions and staying with his opponent. I know that there were other Lakers' problems on the defensive end, too, but that was another important one.

That's why I statements like "Kobe's still so great in his 17th career", "All-NBA First team, and so deserved" or "27.3 / 5.5 / 6!" don't tell the whole story. One can say that it's a testament to the greatness of his longevity that there are few to no other players in the history of the NBA who have done what Kobe's done in this year. Still I think that this is a bit shallow as one can question if it's for the benefit of a team when its offense is that concentrated on one player. That's been a problem in years before (with Gasol complaining about the lack of ball possession for him), and the Lakers have always been better when their offense was more spread out.

Again: What I said is indeed not that much about the longevity itself. It's about the actual kind of play in context of Kobe's impact. Kobe's one of very few players who maintained such a high volume that late in his NBA career (besides Jordan in his Wizards years, and that tells quite something too). I know that it's been cut down from 23 FGAs to 20 FGAs per game in 2012-13. Still it's very high. That can be seen a testament to Kobe's individual play, shape and craft. But in the end it's about winning as a team, and that's where this kind of play should be put in perspective. Arguably not so much in this year with all those injuries to his teammates, but as I said: The Lakers were some kind of disappointment in the last two years before, despite arguably having the best frontcourt in the league.

[BattleTested]

It might sound strange to you but I'd rather my Star player miss most of the regular season but be healthy for the playoffs then visa-versa.

A team good enough to contend might be able to make the playoffs with their Star missing many games but they can't win the title without their Star player in the playoffs.

It's not like Magic went on some kind of deep postseason run. His Lakers were out in 4 games in the 1st round, just like Kobe's team was (3-1 vs 4-0 but still.)

4 first round games are not as important as 46 regular season games.

[john248]

First, what does anything you just said have to do with Kobe's longevity? It just sounds like you don't like the guy. Rather than focusing on his team's success, or lack thereof, there's no point in bringing up Dwight or trying to come up with excuses to diminish his play at this stage of his career.

Read my first posting. I didn't deny Kobe's longevity but said that there are some discussions about it as his fans often overrate it, in terms of Kobe's actual impact. Like ignoring that he was no real superstar before about 2001 - he was popular before as a flashy young player with loads of talent, and of course because of playing for the Lakers, thus getting All-Star votes and berths. But in 2000 he wasn't a bonafide superstar yet.
I just try to put some things in perspective. The discussion in the main board about Kobe being voted to the All-NBA First Team again is quite the same. He doesn't have that constant superstar impact anymore, so the actual height of his level should be disputed, just like his role on his team.
Please: A player often not moving at all on the defensive end is of course harming his team. There would have been a difference if Kobe had put some more effort in at least maintaining positions and staying with his opponent. I know that there were other Lakers' problems on the defensive end, too, but that was another important one.

That's why I statements like "Kobe's still so great in his 17th career", "All-NBA First team, and so deserved" or "27.3 / 5.5 / 6!" don't tell the whole story. One can say that it's a testament to the greatness of his longevity that there are few to no other players in the history of the NBA who have done what Kobe's done in this year. Still I think that this is a bit shallow as one can question if it's for the benefit of a team when its offense is that concentrated on one player. That's been a problem in years before (with Gasol complaining about the lack of ball possession for him), and the Lakers have always been better when their offense was more spread out.

Again: What I said is indeed not that much about the longevity itself. It's about the actual kind of play in context of Kobe's impact. Kobe's one of very few players who maintained such a high volume that late in his NBA career (besides Jordan in his Wizards years, and that tells quite something too). I know that it's been cut down from 23 FGAs to 20 FGAs per game in 2012-13. Still it's very high. That can be seen a testament to Kobe's individual play, shape and craft. But in the end it's about winning as a team, and that's where this kind of play should be put in perspective. Arguably not so much in this year with all those injuries to his teammates, but as I said: The Lakers were some kind of disappointment in the last two years before, despite arguably having the best frontcourt in the league.

I like how if someone overrates Kobe, it leads you to go off-topic a bit.. You feel the need to bring up Kobe pre-2001 and a topic of another thread.

I never denied that Kobe didn't play defense but simply said the Lakers's defensive problems weren't because Kobe was a matador out there at times.

Kobe is the primary ball handler on this team if you were to watch any Lakers games this season. Nash and Blake played roughly half a season and were at times out at the same time. There wasn't a secondary ball handler on this team similar to when Odom was last with the Lakers. You must've missed when Kobe was a huge playmaker during the season or when MDA tried to bench Gasol just after a week taking the job.

If you want to talk about his play during the season, just say it in the other thread you referenced. Fact of the matter remains that his longevity is among the greats that we've seen. Otherwise he'd be Vince Carter.

[DEEP3CL]

I've heard a lot of people say Kobe Bryant has great longevity. How exactly has he had great longevity? Since 2009 he clearly hasn't been the player he used to be. Actually it isn't even close whatsoever. so idk why people say that.

Because he's been in the NBA longer than you've been following basketball.

How do you know how long he's followed basketball?

Trust me vets can detect such elementary analysis. I thought the same thing. You guys look at numbers, DMJ and myself can clearly see how long he's been effective at a high level.