Where do you rank Kobe all-time? (poll)

[CaliBullsFan]

1-11 = Shaq/Lebron/Russell/Wilt/Moses/Magic/Bird/Oscar/Kareem/Duncan/Jordan

12-18 = Barry/Hakeem/Baylor/Petit/Isiah/Havlicek/Kobe

[Chosen01]

8-12 some where.

[emotional]

7-8 Above guys like Hakeem, Lebron and Dirk

[BattleTested]

I have him at 8th. In the top 10 above Hakeem and Wilt (I'm not that big on Wilt.) My top 10 is -

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

[Durins Baynes]

Oh come on, how can he be above Hakeem and Lebron at this stage? And even if he is above Lebron it's clearly only a matter of time at this point. Hakeem and Lebron's peaks are miles better than Kobe's was.

[emotional]

Oh come on, how can he be above Hakeem and Lebron at this stage? And even if he is above Lebron it's clearly only a matter of time at this point. Hakeem and Lebron's peaks are miles better than Kobe's was.

Good thing peak isn't the only criteria I have for all-time rankings

[Durins Baynes]

no, longevity counts too.

Except Hakeem has comparable longevity to Kobe anyway, and to get ahead of him Kobe would need a substantial longevity advantage at least. Lebron has what, 6 prime years already (08-13) compared to Kobe's 9 (01-10, minus 05), and his peak in 4 of those prime years tower over Kobe's peak years (whenever those were). Lebron should be ahead already.

[emotional]

Good thing longevity isn't the only other criteria I have. Prime, per and peak is a group think concept for all of you using big data as God. I only use stats to provide context to what I already think not the other way around. Kobe is clearly above Lebron and Hakeem at this point. Lebron's next 7 years and Kobe's next three will define where they stand in comparison to one another.

[Durins Baynes]

Based on what? "Rings?" The ability to sell jerseys?

[emotional]

That, level of competition, skill-set, global impact and what I see with my eyes.

[Durins Baynes]

"What I see with my eyes" is so subjective you could advance any argument. Global "impact" is just another way of saying jersey sales- that has nothing to do with how good a player was. And a "skill set" that doesn't win games is meaningless- might as well talk up some of the Globetrotters as top 100 players because of their "skills". The only extent to which these things matter is the extent to which they impacted winning games- on a basketball court.

Level of competition doesn't favour Kobe either.

[GSP]

9 or 10

[emotional]

"What I see with my eyes" is so subjective you could advance any argument. Global "impact" is just another way of saying jersey sales- that has nothing to do with how good a player was. And a "skill set" that doesn't win games is meaningless- might as well talk up some of the Globetrotters as top 100 players because of their "skills". The only extent to which these things matter is the extent to which they impacted winning games- on a basketball court.

Level of competition doesn't favour Kobe either.

Again, this is all your opinion. I have mine. If it weren't for the subjective, there would be no point to any part of life, let alone Realgm. I could care less about a formula some statistician came up with cause at the end of the day I'm not a robot, parrot or mime. Also, level of competition clearly favors Kobe over guys like Lebron and Hakeem. A skill-set that doesn't win games? Last I checked dude has 5 rings and a pretty damn good winning percentage. Comparing Kobe to a Globetrotter, okay . Global Impact counts for Michael so it counts for everyone else.... you can't separate context from the numbers.. first impressions and framing is important in any cannon.

[HeartBreakKid]

"What I see with my eyes" is so subjective you could advance any argument. Global "impact" is just another way of saying jersey sales- that has nothing to do with how good a player was. And a "skill set" that doesn't win games is meaningless- might as well talk up some of the Globetrotters as top 100 players because of their "skills". The only extent to which these things matter is the extent to which they impacted winning games- on a basketball court.

Level of competition doesn't favour Kobe either.

Again, this is all your opinion. I have mine. If it weren't for the subjective, there would be no point to any part of life, let alone Realgm. I could care less about a formula some statistician came up with cause at the end of the day I'm not a robot, parrot or mime. Also, level of competition clearly favors Kobe over guys like Lebron and Hakeem. A skill-set that doesn't win games? Last I checked dude has 5 rings and a pretty damn good winning percentage. Comparing Kobe to a Globetrotter, okay . Global Impact counts for Michael so it counts for everyone else.... you can't separate context from the numbers.. first impressions and framing is important in any cannon.

So why wouldn't you just ring count if you don't care about actual impact?

[Durins Baynes]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just as we're entitled to evaluate those opinions and decide whether they're sensible ones to hold (and judge the people holding them accordingly). You have no provided any evidence for your position, and invoked criteria that clearly have nothing to do with how good they were at playing basketball, so I see no reason for us to treat your view as reasoned or sensible.

And no, global impact doesn't count for anyone- Jordan or Kobe.

[emotional]

Who said I discount actual impact? Where was that said?

Like I said earlier, I could care less if you think my opinion is sensible or not. I didn't join RealGm to crunch the same numbers and get the same results as you guys. I'm human and I watch the game with my own perception of the game first.

And you are highly delusional if you don't think Jordan's branding didn't help cement him as the most cited GOAT of the NBA.

The world is in its current derelict state because of big data. Per is the NBA equivalent of economic austerity or "science studies", sure there is a correlation but people assume its the whole pie. Because fools can't understand that the numbers can tell you alot but not enough. Kobe is in the same league as Hakeem and Lebron if you take into account all quantifiable measures so my opinion of him being 7-8 isn't ludicrous.

[Durins Baynes]

I don't see how, since you haven't contested that:
a) Hakeem has a comparable peak, and Lebron's is only 3 years less, and
b) Lebron and Hakeem peaked way higher
After that, what's the argument for Kobe? I don't use PER either, but you're using criteria that clearly has nothing to do with how they played basketball ("global impact", "skill set", "rings"- all of which are not necessarily connected to basketball impact)

[emotional]

Dude I didn't bother to make an argument because there are literally DOZENS of threads where the same arguments have been made. Go look around. If I made a radical assertion then I could gander why you would want a long, drawn out argument based on stats and empiricism. An intelligent person should be able to assume things. The one problem I notice with Realgm is there is a certain population that literally need obvious things spelled out for them EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Rings, skill-set and global impact are all connected to how you play and impact the game, unless you are some conspiracy theorist who thinks the world arbitrarily choose Kobe to anoint a top 10 player all time. I welcome a dearth of opinions. If someone believes Kobe isn't a top 50 player and can make the case, I can respect it, though it is a radical statement and would need a bit of evidence to back the assertion. Like I said, Kobe at 7 or 8 all time is not a radical opinion. You obviously read the Player Comparison board, look around, there are numerous arguments made for and against. This is a polling thread, not a analytical thread. OMG!

[Durins Baynes]

The thread can be for polling and analysis. Also, 77% of people in this poll have Kobe outside the top 8, so it sure seems like a radical opinion to assert he's higher (especially when only 6% have him above 8).

[richboy]

Back-to-back titles as the man (including three straight Finals appearances). Three straight titles as a super-sidekick. Set numerous scoring records in those lean years when his cast was awful. Has demonstrated unbelievable longevity in a game that typically doesn't allow its star players to retain their form.

I'd say he's pretty easily a top ten player.

Calling him the man even then is a stretch. He was still second on the team in win share for both. Second in per for one and slightly ahead for the another.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using RealGM Forums mobile app