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

[HeartBreakKid]

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

Seem to be heavily implying it. Throwing out stats out the window, bringing up rings. Should I not be getting that vibe?

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 what about your perception shows Kobe Bryant to be better than Hakeem and James? I don't get how citing rings is any different from citing RAPM.

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.

Am I missing something? What does Jordan, branding or him being cited as the GOAT have anything to do with this conversation? I dont even have Jordan as the GOAT, and I'm well aware of how famous and hyped he is since I live on planet Earth.

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.

Not sure why you would think it is just "numbers" that have those guys over him, but numbers certainly help.

It's not as if Kobe Bryant loses to those guys in some stats, he loses to them in many, by a large margin. Not sure how you can just brush that off because you "watched him", what does that even mean? We've all watched him. You say that you don't care what other realgmers opinions are, well why should we care what yours are? If you're going to just say Bryant is better just cause, how is someone supposed to respond to that?

I dont even get your criticism on the world. This isn't sociology, and numbers are why we're having this conversation on the internet, so your statement is a bit too generalized for me to really grasp what you're talking about.

[emotional]

Who threw out stats? Look back at my post where I clearly say stats and numbers have their purpose. And no, numbers are why YOU are here. Tell me why Jeff Koons is great while I go and look at this Matisse up close.

[HeartBreakKid]

Who threw out stats? Look back at my post where I clearly say stats and numbers have their purpose.

Yeah, you say it, but you don't actually show it. Anyone can say something in order to make themselves look more objective, but you're not actually demonstrating that you mean what you said.

And no, numbers are why YOU are here.

Huh?

Tell me why Jeff Koons is great while I go and look at this Matisse up close.

This analogy really makes no sense at all.

[emotional]

It makes perfect sense.

[richboy]

Kobe has such a low peak the idea of him being better than players with 5 or more seasons better than his best season is crazy. It sometimes debatable if Kobe is even top 15. Why is Kobe considered better than guys like Oscar Robinson, DR.J, Jerry West, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, or even Charles Barkley. Year by year he is back and fourth with guys like Kg and Dirk. How many years does Lebron have that is better than Kobe's best. Sorry after a half dozen you can't be considered better than that player anymore. Kobe being ranked in front of Lebron, Hakeem, or Duncan is just Laker hype machine.

Putting Kobe 11 or 12 is pretty generous since that means he going in front of guys that also have had many seasons higher than Kobe's peak. IMO there is 10 guys that I just can't see an argument that Kobe could be better than.

MJ
Jabbar
Russell
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem

I don't even know how Kobe is in the discussion over these 10 guys. That 10 guys meet my standard of being the dominate players of the league. That doesn't mean I'm disrespected Kobe. Because I'm putting in front of guys like KG, Dirk, Karl, Moses, Oscar, West, Dr.J, Sir Charles. Being top 5 for 13 years is pretty amazing itself. I'm not calling a player a top 10 player when year and year out there are 3 or 4 players better than him.

[TheChosen618]

I don't even know how Kobe is in the discussion over these 10 guys. That 10 guys meet my standard of being the dominate players of the league.

People have different values and opinions on how certain players rank.

For example, some people may believe scoring is the most important aspect of the game and maybe even the only aspect of the game that matters to them, in that case, players like Kobe, Dirk, Gervin, etc. will probably be rated very high to them. They probably do not have the Tim Duncan and the Bill Russell's as high. It's not that they are necessarily wrong but they just have different values on a certain player's value and rank.

Most of Kobe's argument as a top 10 players comes from his longevity and his achievements. Most RealGM members (PC Board) value peak play more and don't really care much about achievements, so it makes a lot of sense that Kobe isn't as highly regarded here as he might be somewhere else. I personally don't think achievements should be worth much either because a lot of it is media based and there is a lot of luck involved, championships mainly. People have different values though, so just because they value something differently than you do doesn't mean they are wrong. It is why there is no consensus all-time list.

I think Kobe has an argument over Bird primarily because he has greater longevity and was more consistent as a playoff performer throughout their careers. Bird was an inconsistent playoff performer throughout his career but at his peak, he was performing top notch in the playoffs. Bird at his peak was on another level than Kobe was at his in my opinion but I do think consistency and longevity means something. It's actually the same argument for Kobe over Wilt as well.

Kobe's argument over Hakeem is longevity and accomplishments. If one were to believe that Hakeem wasn't all that special outside of 1993-1995 then I would almost assume they would have Kobe above Hakeem. Hakeem's longevity and overall career is quite underrated though.

[Durins Baynes]

Eh, Kobe has more longevity than Bird, but not in any way that counts. I mean, Bird has 8 prime years, Kobe has 9. Kobe has more sub-prime years, but those years are ones where both were not at the same level, so to a certain extent who really cares? It would be a big deal if Kobe's peak play was comparable to Bird, but since it so clearly wasn't it's basically just a footnote someone uses to qualify why they're taking Bird.

[richboy]

I don't even know how Kobe is in the discussion over these 10 guys. That 10 guys meet my standard of being the dominate players of the league.

People have different values and opinions on how certain players rank.

For example, some people may believe scoring is the most important aspect of the game and maybe even the only aspect of the game that matters to them, in that case, players like Kobe, Dirk, Gervin, etc. will probably be rated very high to them. They probably do not have the Tim Duncan and the Bill Russell's as high. It's not that they are necessarily wrong but they just have different values on a certain player's value and rank.

Most of Kobe's argument as a top 10 players comes from his longevity and his achievements. Most RealGM members (PC Board) value peak play more and don't really care much about achievements, so it makes a lot of sense that Kobe isn't as highly regarded here as he might be somewhere else. I personally don't think achievements should be worth much either because a lot of it is media based and there is a lot of luck involved, championships mainly. People have different values though, so just because they value something differently than you do doesn't mean they are wrong. It is why there is no consensus all-time list.

I think Kobe has an argument over Bird primarily because he has greater longevity and was more consistent as a playoff performer throughout their careers. Bird was an inconsistent playoff performer throughout his career but at his peak, he was performing top notch in the playoffs. Bird at his peak was on another level than Kobe was at his in my opinion but I do think consistency and longevity means something. It's actually the same argument for Kobe over Wilt as well.

Kobe's argument over Hakeem is longevity and accomplishments. If one were to believe that Hakeem wasn't all that special outside of 1993-1995 then I would almost assume they would have Kobe above Hakeem. Hakeem's longevity and overall career is quite underrated though.

Well you actually just say some people are idiots and not qualified to speak on the topic. Especially if they think only scoring matters. In reality there are people that have a list that I could care less about.

In terms of Hakeem. What you said is pretty common to those that bash Hakeem lately. It ignores the fact that Hakeem 93-95 was not Hakeem defensive peak. Even if that level is higher than the rest of his career. It is just on offense. Lets not ignore the fact that Hakeem was potentially the greatest defensive player in modern basketball history before that. Even without those years he would be in the argument of players like KG, Malone, Barkley, Dirk, and Kobe. He should have won 4 DPOY awards at least.

The sad thing is though Hakeem didn't get the attention until he did it on offense at another level. If I said right now I'm giving you the number 2 defensive player in league history and 22-24 ppg. In essence someone who probably a level above 2011 Dwight Howard. That is someone who still could be considered better than Kobe. If not atleast comparable. Now give him 93-95 and you have a pretty good separation.

One more thing about Hakeem. Hakeem is the one player who if things bounced differently he could have won a lot more. Kobe and Shaq pretty much maxed out because they almost always was playing with great talent. Hakeem is one of the players that could have won a lot more. IMO I don't think its a coincidence that Hakeem was unstoppable once he had talent around him and teams just couldn't key on him anymore. Hakeem with Clyde Drexler a few years earlier would have won more titles than Shaq and Kobe won together.

[LakerLegend]

Bird isn't on a different level than Kobe, even Bird would tell you that. Kobe's 06-10 run, let alone what he did before in terms of regular season and playoff dominance is completely comparable to a guy like Bird. People like players, coaches, gms, have been calling him the best player in the league since 2001.

You guys act like Bird played every game like what they show as his career best ones on ESPN classic.

Guys like Garnett Dirk and Duncan, Kobe has literally been humiliating them for a decade. Karl Malone? Dr. J? Those guys literally have NO argument over Kobe. Karl I don't even need to explain. Dr. J? Kobe's more skilled than him in literally every aspect of the game save MAYBE rebounding, and the doc's numbers are era inflated in that regard. Kobe can literally do 1000 things on the court he wasn't capable of. Even Wests resume isn't comparable if you look at them objectively.

[Durins Baynes]

What players say is meaningless, they have proven time and again why they have no credibility (Magic just the other day reminded us, and Barkley does every other week). Players tend to just say whatever is on their mind on the spur of the moment. It's very different to crunching out a list where you realise "oh, oops, I've got too many guys in my top 10, this will be harder than I thought". Players (and ex-players) also have a PC code of defending each other and hyping each other up. Lebron for instance was asked by a reporter who the best player was after he'd won multiple MVP's... and he said "Kobe". Not because he believes that, it's so obvious he doesn't, but because he knows it makes him look humble, tips his hat to the senior player like he's supposed to, while other people sing his praises for him.

Bird came onto a team that had won 29 games the year before, and with no real other improvements (except his presence) the team won 61 games in his rookie year. They had the best record, and the best SRS. This was before Bird was at his peak, before he had McHale and Parish and D.Johnson and Ainge, before he could shoot the 3, and he already had a bigger impact than Kobe ever showed at any stage of his career. Kobe never hinted that he was worth 32 wins, and his 3 seasons from 05-07 highlight that nicely. The 05 team was decent, some of the others less-so, but even when the teams were bad they weren't bad enough to indicate they were teams who were only worth 3 to 13 wins.

Guys like Garnett Dirk and Duncan, Kobe has literally been humiliating them for a decade. - See more at: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1270862&p=36876704#p36876704

This comment too is pretty absurd. Kobe only played Duncan's team 4 times in their primes, and on none of those occasions was Kobe the best player on his own team. Nor was Duncan guarding him, and Kobe was matched up with trash like Antonio Daniels in his best series against them, while Duncan had to fend off Shaq in the paint (and Karl Malone as well). Here's the outcome of those series:
- 2001; Far stronger Lakers team beats the Spurs, who have Duncan, a sup-prime Duncan who Shaq embarrassed, and their only viable scorer Derek Anderson was injuried.
- 2002; Duncan had an absolutely awful team, no way to expect he could have beaten a team with Shaq and Kobe combined
- 2003; Duncan still shouldn't have won, but somehow managed to will them across the line against a far more talented team
- 2004; Duncan almost does it again against an even stronger Laker team, hitting a miracle shot that would likely have given them the series, but for a Derek Fisher shot that couldn't possibly have left his hands in the time remaining... but hey, it was a dramatic shot, so the refs let it through.
Duncan gets amazing props for beating a team with prime Shaq and Kobe once, especially given the help he had. I assume you're counting 2008 for some reason, I don't know why. If 1999 doesn't count for Duncan (because Kobe wasn't in his prime), then why would 2008 count for Kobe (when Duncan wasn't in his prime)? Manu was also seriously injured that series and should not have been playing, he was basically a shell of himself. After the series the doctors told him he was in doubt for the Olympics 3 months later. The Lakers also had the more talented support cast around Kobe that year. Also if post-prime Duncan counts, why aren't we counting the Dirk Mavs (or Durant Thunder) in 2011 and 2012, who both humiliated the Lakers? I mean, 2011 is the only time Dirk played Kobe in the playoffs, so how did he "humiliate him"? Weird.

The first time KG played Kobe with a similarly talented team (2008) KG was the one who humiliated Kobe. Then in 2009 KG was out injured, and 2010 KG wasn't in his prime anymore (partly from said injury).

[te887848]

10th or 11th being neck and neck with Hakeem. No argument over Jordan, Wilt, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, and Magic. And then Duncan, Shaq, and Bird to me were pretty clearly better players as well, even if Shaq and Bird didn't have very long-sustained prime years. They still did enough (Bird 84-86, Shaq 00-02) during their glory years to warrant being ranked ahead of Kobe.

[BmanInBigD]

Guys like Garnett Dirk and Duncan, Kobe has literally been humiliating them for a decade.

The '11 Mavs sweep of the the Lakers, the only time Dirk and Kobe met in the post-season, says hi. What a weird post. And BTW, Kobe has the highest artificial acclaim due to ESPN highlights of probably anyone in history.

[emotional]

How do you measure "highest artificial acclaim due to ESPN highlights" cause last I checked ESPN does top 10 Lebron plays on nights he doesn't even have games and has entire segments dedicated to his tweets or what video game soundtrack he curated and yet still an over the hill Kobe is comparable in popularity. Oh I get it, people are robots who don't have any control over what superstar they like because it doesn't fit in with your bias. Funny enough the people who use SOLELY the most robotic measure to interpret basketball, call others robots, sheep, or casual fans when it doesn't sway with their opinion.

[microfib4thewin]

Bird isn't on a different level than Kobe, even Bird would tell you that. Kobe's 06-10 run, let alone what he did before in terms of regular season and playoff dominance is completely comparable to a guy like Bird. People like players, coaches, gms, have been calling him the best player in the league since 2001.

Bird had 8 top 2 MVP finishes and was nearly the unanimous MVP for three straight years over prime Magic. Kobe's 06-10 had two years where he was putting up numbers on a mediocre team, one very controversial MVP and two second place finish far behind Lebron. The numbers backed up those selections as well. You can use your subjective bias to twist where Kobe and Bird are at relative to each other, but all evidence points to Bird having a much better peak than Kobe.

You guys act like Bird played every game like what they show as his career best ones on ESPN classic.

Kobe doesn't always play like what you see on ESPN highlights either and I don't hear you complaining.

Karl I don't even need to explain.

This has to be the most popular saying for Laker fans. Karl Malone is perhaps the most similar to Kobe as a player, Dominant scorer, either average or above average in the other departments, not a defensive anchor, and have played at or below their norm during the playoffs. Of course, the only way to explain that Kobe has 5 rings and Karl has 0 rings is that Kobe is a winner and Karl is a choker so no comparison needs to be made. The Kobe-Karl comparison is perhaps the best example of Kobe fans dodging the usage of context.

[emotional]

MVPs are just as much a function of winning as championships are. Once again, your biases shape what you want to give more weight to. Especially given that the two conferences don't play equivalent schedules. Finals MVPS > MVPS.

And how are guys like Kobe and Karl below average in other departments? There are literally a handful of guys more well-rounded at Kobe at the guard slot in NBA history.

[BmanInBigD]

How do you measure "highest artificial acclaim due to ESPN highlights" cause last I checked ESPN does top 10 Lebron plays on nights he doesn't even have games and has entire segments dedicated to his tweets or what video game soundtrack he curated and yet still an over the hill Kobe is comparable in popularity. Oh I get it, people are robots who don't have any control over what superstar they like because it doesn't fit in with your bias. Funny enough the people who use SOLELY the most robotic measure to interpret basketball, call others robots, sheep, or casual fans when it doesn't sway with their opinion.

I get it. He's popular. STILL popular. So what? One Direction is insanely popular. I took my daughters to their concert a few weeks ago and it 20,000 kids non-stop screaming. Does that mean they're good? At least according to any one over 20 with the least bit of music objectivity? Hell no!

The point is that many people overrate him because he's so popular. They see him on ESPN every night so he must be great. They don't have the ability to watch a game and see his impact, good or bad, and then be able to use stats later to verify or contradict what they've seen. Nobody SOLELY uses stats to measure a player, but sometimes they can give a different view of a player when used properly and in the right context. Maybe you oughtta try it some time.

[emotional]

:They don't have the ability to watch a game and see his impact, good or bad, and then be able to use stats later to verify or contradict what they've seen.

YES, only people on Realgm have the ability to watch the heavily televised Laker games and go on a site like ESPN and look at advanced stats lol Talk about delusional

:At least according to any one over 20 with the least bit of music objectivity?
You like empiricism, back this up with proof that backs up your assertion

Kobe isn't popular because he is on ESPN a lot but because he, along with Tim Duncan, are the two quintessential winners in their sport. They both have been top 10 players for the last 15 years as well. The media will always talk about a top player who wins. They aren't constructing some undeserved mediocre star player like you are trying to frame it.

One Direction? Yes because the mechanisms that make the music industry work at all similar to The NBA. Good job.

Also, I love all the fabrications from people pissed that I think Kobe is a top 7-8 player, same people have him no lower than 12, by saying that I don't value stats or empiricism. Let me be clear, math is an incredibly helpful tool to gain insight into the madness of anything but it is not a toll that can give a fully encompassing description of what occurs.

[Asianiac_24]

I rank players simply by, "which player could potentially win me the most rings if I have them for their career"? In which case, Kobe gives me a good 13 years window of winning a championship, so he is above guys like Hakeem and KG. As for numbers, Kobe has averaged what, 28/6/6 over the past 10+ years? That sounds pretty dominant to me. I have Kobe around 9-10.

[The Infamous1]

Top 5.

[Amares]

12-15 and it's doubtful he will be higher, his legacy seems to be over. Overall great player but also very overrated through the entire career.