RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #9

[kayess]

Man that last thread got ugly.

Although I think KG's cast was worse - undeniably so- I think it's irritating to preach KG's values, how it doesn't show up in the box, highlight the importance of fit, then turn around and say "his teammates are crap because of VORP, etc", (note: I KNOW we used RAPM to show this as well), and ignore fit (Mike James' numbers are emtpy, yeah - but the one thing he can do above average fits what they needed).

It just reeks of shifting criteria because we would never use VORP or WS to make points for/against the player himself, but to denigrate the cast/prop up the cast of the player we're arguing against. We make the best possible case for one player, and just an average - worst possible case for the other, instead of just basing it on a solid, non-shifting criteria.

(Though I fully sympathize with trying to argue on other people's level so that you have a shot of convincing them)

It's the kind of **** Chuck is sick of, I'm sure.

Vote: KG
Alt: Hakeem

Will copy-paste reasoning in previous thread - I thought Inhad posted in the previous two threads but turns out I forgot I hadn't.

The pre-93 Hakeem discussion was great, albeit not enough to convince me that he had enough great years to match KG's superstar longevity. Best case he has what... 86, 88 90-97 as superstar years? He peaked higher, but not enough that KG's ~5 years of extra superstar seasons cannot overcome the difference in expected championships from their peaks.

Open to arguments though; specifically, was Hakeem's defense/passing from 86-90 always there, and just underutilized due to team setup? Is it a LeBron like situation where there were no capable ball handlers on the team so he had to take the brunt of playmaking responsibilities? Depending on the answers here I could see myself voting for Hakeem knstead in this spot, or voting for DRob as the alt instead.

[penbeast0]

I think Hakeem's defensive ability reached it's max level pretty quickly. He relied on his great quickness, jumping, length, and instincts rather than positional/spacing defense. I don't think his passing developed nearly as fast based on memory and eye test.

[oldschooled]

Not only Hakeem has a excellent peak and prime but he was playing at a all-star level for 15 years

Same could be said between Bird an Kobe. And they're def playing at a higher level in their era than Hakeem.

Code: Select all

Rank                   Player MVP Shares
4.                Larry Bird*      5.612
10.               Kobe Bryant      4.202
19.          Hakeem Olajuwon*      2.610


Leaning Larry Legend here but could be swayed into taking Kobe because of longevity, playoff consistency and insane peak/prime length.

[scrabbarista]

9. Larry Bird

10. Kobe Bryant

I'm not sure I have anything to say on these two that hasn't been said in this thread or one of the previous ones. I think that if you have Bird, Kobe, and Hakeem in the 9-11 spots - in some order - then you're following conventional wisdom. I also think you're right. Every iteration of the formulas I've used has had the three of them in those spots. It's also a bit of a crapshoot, as each player has at one time or another held each of the three spots in question.

Right now I give the edge to Bird. He's one of only seven players (neither of Dream or Kobe are one) to have been the best player on at least three championship teams. In my weighted metric incorporating Top 5 MVP finishes, he is fifth all-time. Kobe is tied for tenth, and Hakeem is twenty-second. Were voters that biased? That ignorant? It's a pretty huge gap (b/w Bird and Dream, especially).

My formula puts Bird in the 900 range - alone with Wilt Chamberlain - while Kobe is alone in the 700's, and Hakeem shares the 600's with Karl Malone. Again, we're looking at a big gap.

Among these three, the thing that sets Bird apart is that it was easy to see him making his teammates better. Kobe and Hakeem, as elite isolation scorers, carried their teams; Bird, with his passing, vision, and ability to space the floor, lifted his. Maybe it's a question of taste, but it also highlights Bird's versatility. Only a few players, a handful at most, have been able to do such a wide variety of basketball tasks at such a high level: Lebron, maybe Magic, probably Jordan, and then things become more debatable. True, his statistical case is limited by his lack of longevity and the high caliber of his teammates - but it's still a hell of a case.

I can easily accept any of these three players here, but I'd pick Larry Legend if my job as a (Real) GM depended on it.

[eminence]

Not only Hakeem has a excellent peak and prime but he was playing at a all-star level for 15 years

Same could be said between Bird an Kobe. And they're def playing at a higher level in their era than Hakeem.

Code: Select all

Rank                   Player MVP Shares
4.                Larry Bird*      5.612
10.               Kobe Bryant      4.202
19.          Hakeem Olajuwon*      2.610


Leaning Larry Legend here but could be swayed into taking Kobe because of longevity, playoff consistency and insane peak/prime length.

That'd be awfully tough to say about Larry with a straight face...

[THKNKG]

Man that last thread got ugly.

Although I think KG's cast was worse - undeniably so- I think it's irritating to preach KG's values, how it doesn't show up in the box, highlight the importance of fit, then turn around and say "his teammates are crap because of VORP, etc", (note: I KNOW we used RAPM to show this as well), and ignore fit (Mike James' numbers are emtpy, yeah - but the one thing he can do above average fits what they needed).

It just reeks of shifting criteria because we would never use VORP or WS to make points for/against the player himself, but to denigrate the cast/prop up the cast of the player we're arguing against. We make the best possible case for one player, and just an average - worst possible case for the other, instead of just basing it on a solid, non-shifting criteria.

(Though I fully sympathize with trying to argue on other people's level so that you have a shot of convincing them)

It's the kind of **** Chuck is sick of, I'm sure.

Vote: KG
Alt: Hakeem

Will copy-paste reasoning in previous thread - I thought Inhad posted in the previous two threads but turns out I forgot I hadn't.

The pre-93 Hakeem discussion was great, albeit not enough to convince me that he had enough great years to match KG's superstar longevity. Best case he has what... 86, 88 90-97 as superstar years? He peaked higher, but not enough that KG's ~5 years of extra superstar seasons cannot overcome the difference in expected championships from their peaks.

Open to arguments though; specifically, was Hakeem's defense/passing from 86-90 always there, and just underutilized due to team setup? Is it a LeBron like situation where there were no capable ball handlers on the team so he had to take the brunt of playmaking responsibilities? Depending on the answers here I could see myself voting for Hakeem knstead in this spot, or voting for DRob as the alt instead.

To be fair, people only went to WP/VORP because people would not accept any other avenue.

I'm with you on Hakeem's pre-93 years. If he played 86-95 at roughly the same level, that makes him have a pretty strong case against KG. If not, and those early years aren't as strong, I feel that DRob has a valid case over Hakeem, as DRob had a ~10 year prime with pretty unarguable superstar impact. David probably had a better supporting defensive cast, but he didn't really have a great offensive team, talent or fit wise (compared to Hakeem).

[THKNKG]

Anyone have Dirk over Kobe and Bird? A few things I think could be in his favor:

1. Longevity (over Bird)
2. Gravity (over both, and over everyone in history IMO)
3. Consistently superior offensive impact to Kobe (by RAPM standards)
4. Led a multiplicity of top offenses
5. I'm not convinced that any offensive player has a clear advantage over him
6. He has a more resilient offensive game vs tough defenses/PS defenses than Duncan/KG/Kobe - he's in the Shaq tier of resilience

Those aren't dogmatic statements, so don't take them that way. I'd just like to hear discussion, as he tends to rank out of the top 10 pretty easily, but his peak PS run, prime, etc. all match up with pretty much anyone.

What are your sources for Dirk having superior offensive Rapm to Kobe? I recall it being the opposite.

My brain's faultiness was my source, whoops. Kobe has the slight edge in ORAPM, but Dirk has a smallish, but significant edge in RAPM.

[kayess]

Man that last thread got ugly.

Although I think KG's cast was worse - undeniably so- I think it's irritating to preach KG's values, how it doesn't show up in the box, highlight the importance of fit, then turn around and say "his teammates are crap because of VORP, etc", (note: I KNOW we used RAPM to show this as well), and ignore fit (Mike James' numbers are emtpy, yeah - but the one thing he can do above average fits what they needed).

It just reeks of shifting criteria because we would never use VORP or WS to make points for/against the player himself, but to denigrate the cast/prop up the cast of the player we're arguing against. We make the best possible case for one player, and just an average - worst possible case for the other, instead of just basing it on a solid, non-shifting criteria.

(Though I fully sympathize with trying to argue on other people's level so that you have a shot of convincing them)

It's the kind of **** Chuck is sick of, I'm sure.

Vote: KG
Alt: Hakeem

Will copy-paste reasoning in previous thread - I thought Inhad posted in the previous two threads but turns out I forgot I hadn't.

The pre-93 Hakeem discussion was great, albeit not enough to convince me that he had enough great years to match KG's superstar longevity. Best case he has what... 86, 88 90-97 as superstar years? He peaked higher, but not enough that KG's ~5 years of extra superstar seasons cannot overcome the difference in expected championships from their peaks.

Open to arguments though; specifically, was Hakeem's defense/passing from 86-90 always there, and just underutilized due to team setup? Is it a LeBron like situation where there were no capable ball handlers on the team so he had to take the brunt of playmaking responsibilities? Depending on the answers here I could see myself voting for Hakeem knstead in this spot, or voting for DRob as the alt instead.

To be fair, people only went to WP/VORP because people would not accept any other avenue.

I'm with you on Hakeem's pre-93 years. If he played 86-95 at roughly the same level, that makes him have a pretty strong case against KG. If not, and those early years aren't as strong, I feel that DRob has a valid case over Hakeem, as DRob had a ~10 year prime with pretty unarguable superstar impact. David probably had a better supporting defensive cast, but he didn't really have a great offensive team, talent or fit wise (compared to Hakeem).

Fair - I just feel it's more principled to just side step that entirely by going to skill-set discussion.

just waiting for Chuck's stuff on DRob (I think ElGee and therealbig3 have this as well?)

[Outside]

Bird only played 12 seasons, had numerous playoff failures and his overall career value just doesn't come close to a lot of the guys left. I'd rank Garnett, Hakeem, Robinson, Dirk, Kobe and Malone over him.

I'm curious why you have that opinion of Bird. Longevity is the weakest point in his resume as a top-10 candidate, but I don't see the two points I highlighted as valid criticisms.

Regarding playoff failures, Bird led his team to the finals five times in 12 years and won three titles, which is better than everyone you listed except Kobe. The only year I would characterize as a notable playoff failure is 1983 when they lost in the semis to the Bucks, but that was the end of Bill Fitch's tenure, and they won the title the next season under KC Jones. I don't think it's fair to characterize losing to powerhouse teams like the Sixers, Lakers, and later Pistons as "failure." Unless you're part of the Russell Celtics, everybody had playoff losses, and everyone you list has worse playoff losses on their resume compared to Bird (I'm assuming "Malone" means Karl Malone, but the point is valid even if you mean Moses).

Despite having a shorter career than the others you list, Bird played in more playoff games (164) than Hakeem (145), Dirk (145), KG (143), and David Robinson (123). Of the guys you listed, only Kobe (220) and Karl Malone (193) were in more playoff games than Bird, and Kobe (6th) and Karl Malone (11th) are among the all-time leaders in career playoff games.

For "overall career value," unless you're penalizing Bird twice for longevity (you already mentioned that he only played 12 seasons), he has excellent career value.

Am I missing something?

[THKNKG]

Fair - I just feel it's more principled to just side step that entirely by going to skill-set discussion.

just waiting for Chuck's stuff on DRob (I think ElGee and therealbig3 have this as well?)

Yeah, I normally wouldn't get bogged down in semantics, but those semantics were the sticking point for even having KG in consideration for a few people - that's why I went there. I now see I wasted my time to some degree, and should focus on making appeals as you said - to those who are willing to hear them.

I wonder - how much of our opinion of DRob is shaped by Wilt/Kareem/Hakeem/Shaq-itis? What I mean is, we can tend to expect all time great big men to be strong volume scorers and excellent defenders (Duncan fits that category as well). However, when players don't fit that description, it can be easy to compare them against that standard even though they play two different styles.

Here's what I mean (KG and DRob are the two biggest examples I can think of). We see two players who make their best living offensively as non-high volume scorers (though I'd say KG is the better offensive player). Since they are lesser than these other big men offensively in that particular category, they unfortunately fall lower. DRob in part falls because he's not Hakeem, but what if his better stylistic parallel is Bill Russell? Would his teams have dropped off in the playoffs as much if he had a different primary scorer and was allowed to play the finisher/face up/defensive anchor instead of anchor of both?

Could be something, could be nothing. Just thinking out loud.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Dr Positivity]

Picking between KG, Bird and Hakeem here

Case for KG: Modern enough to have the +/- stats showing how impactful he is. Strong longevity considering he continued to have impact late into his Boston career. Great intangibles. RAPM favors his style of offensive big over post players. When seeing how strongly players like Draymond or Patterson perform compared to their boxscore stats, doesn't it make sense why KG as the mega mega version of those players would have such high impact? Case against: Real drop-offs in offensive stats. Some good posts have shown that KG's impact isn't as much in the boxscore anyways, but it's still an issue.

Case for Bird: Underrated on defense based on DWS, DBPM, All-Defensive teams all supporting him. Strong defender for his position combined with all time great offense, elite portability supports his case. MVP votes from 84-86 shows voters at the time were thinking GOAT level for him. Fits the profile in my opinion of high impact players such as Manu or Iguodala - always has his hands in the right spot, etc. Case against: Playoff efficiency early and late in his career is an issue. Possible case he's not offensive GOAT level because he is too reliant on jumpshots. Ok longevity.

Case for Hakeem: Sick ability to raise his game in 94 and 95 that altered his team winning the titles. Game on paper is perfect with both elite defense in multiple ways, post high skilled post game. Offense holds up well to the playoffs. Case against: Only OK RAPM in the late 90s. Temper issues in first half of his career. Just because his teammates in 94 and 95 aren't flashy doesn't mean they weren't high impact RAPM type of players, especially when clutch playoffs is taken into account. May have benefitted from ahead of his time spacing allowing easier defensive coverage on than other stars.

This one is really tough. I think KG has the best combination of leadership and longevity. Hakeem seems more clutch than KG, but the argument that KG has more non boxscore impact than Hakeem makes it closer. Bird has the best peak arguably but worst longevity.

Vote: Kevin Garnett

2nd: Larry Bird

[70sFan]

Now I see people underrate pre-1993 Hakeem. He was definitely superstar in all 1986-90 seasons. Just because he couldn't win much doesn't change that. His defense was excellent in late 80s and even though he wasn't a great passer his offense overall was unstoppable. He was also beast on offensive boards early on.

I don't see how KG can have longer prime than Hakeem. Olajuwon has 12 years prime (1986-97). Do you really think that KG post 2008 was that better than prime Hakeem? Even his weakest years (1991 and 1992) aren't bad by any means.

What I know is that I have a tough time taking KG in place of 1986 Rockets and see them upseting Lakers. Hakeem was raw then, but his physical abilities along with already amazing scoring prowess made him more unstoppable player in playoffs than Garnett. Kevin wouldn't have done much more with 1987-90 Rockets. Definitely not in playoffs.

[Jaivl]

1. Longevity (over Bird)
2. Gravity (over both, and over everyone in history IMO)
3. Consistently superior offensive impact to Kobe (by RAPM standards)
4. Led a multiplicity of top offenses
5. I'm not convinced that any offensive player has a clear advantage over him
6. He has a more resilient offensive game vs tough defenses/PS defenses than Duncan/KG/Kobe - he's in the Shaq tier of resilience

3 is not true. His main advantage over Kobe in RAPM comes from defense.

EDIT: Should have read the whole tread before posting

I don't see how KG can have longer prime than Hakeem. Olajuwon has 12 years prime (1986-97). Do you really think that KG post 2008 was that better than prime Hakeem? Even his weakest years (1991 and 1992) aren't bad by any means.

Post-2008 KG is on the level of 96/97 and some Young Hakeem years, for sure. Yeah he wasn't nothing to write about on offense, but clocked as the best defender in the league by a decent margin.

[ardee]

Anyone have Dirk over Kobe and Bird? A few things I think could be in his favor:

1. Longevity (over Bird)
2. Gravity (over both, and over everyone in history IMO)
3. Consistently superior offensive impact to Kobe (by RAPM standards)
4. Led a multiplicity of top offenses
5. I'm not convinced that any offensive player has a clear advantage over him
6. He has a more resilient offensive game vs tough defenses/PS defenses than Duncan/KG/Kobe - he's in the Shaq tier of resilience

Those aren't dogmatic statements, so don't take them that way. I'd just like to hear discussion, as he tends to rank out of the top 10 pretty easily, but his peak PS run, prime, etc. all match up with pretty much anyone.

What are your sources for Dirk having superior offensive Rapm to Kobe? I recall it being the opposite.

This was the sheet that D Nice posted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-0FsoryZO76bGpCcXRfc0haMDQ/view

According to this, Kobe was having 10% more impact than Dirk over the course of 2002-2011 while playing 1.3 more mpg. Also, '02-'11 captures Dirk's best 10 year stretch EXACTLY, while it omits one of Kobe's best years in 2001.

So Kobe is definitely a notch above Dirk by this measure.

[BasketballFan7]

Anyone have Dirk over Kobe and Bird? A few things I think could be in his favor:

1. Longevity (over Bird)
2. Gravity (over both, and over everyone in history IMO)
3. Consistently superior offensive impact to Kobe (by RAPM standards)
4. Led a multiplicity of top offenses
5. I'm not convinced that any offensive player has a clear advantage over him
6. He has a more resilient offensive game vs tough defenses/PS defenses than Duncan/KG/Kobe - he's in the Shaq tier of resilience

Those aren't dogmatic statements, so don't take them that way. I'd just like to hear discussion, as he tends to rank out of the top 10 pretty easily, but his peak PS run, prime, etc. all match up with pretty much anyone.

My ranking system surprisingly has Dirk with roughly the same career value as Magic and Bird. A tad below Kobe and a tad above Karl Malone. So I can definitely see potential pro-Dirk arguments. Excellent longevity, excellent peak. I would have him even higher if not for the 2003 (playoff) injury. Although the same could be said for Magic in 1981 / 1989, Bird in 1989, and Kobe in 2013).

[Xherdan 23]

Anyone have Dirk over Kobe and Bird? A few things I think could be in his favor:

1. Longevity (over Bird)
2. Gravity (over both, and over everyone in history IMO)
3. Consistently superior offensive impact to Kobe (by RAPM standards)
4. Led a multiplicity of top offenses
5. I'm not convinced that any offensive player has a clear advantage over him
6. He has a more resilient offensive game vs tough defenses/PS defenses than Duncan/KG/Kobe - he's in the Shaq tier of resilience

Those aren't dogmatic statements, so don't take them that way. I'd just like to hear discussion, as he tends to rank out of the top 10 pretty easily, but his peak PS run, prime, etc. all match up with pretty much anyone.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have him over either one or both, 8-16 are really about personal preference IMO, they're all extremely close.

[Senior]

Still on the Hakeem train. KG in the mix. Bird probably looking in too, and yes, even Kobe. I actually would like to see how people value Kobe's longevity vs Bird's peak - Kobe's time as a superstar was as long as Bird's career. Bird's supporting cast was one of the best in history too.

Man that last thread got ugly.

Although I think KG's cast was worse - undeniably so- I think it's irritating to preach KG's values, how it doesn't show up in the box, highlight the importance of fit, then turn around and say "his teammates are crap because of VORP, etc", (note: I KNOW we used RAPM to show this as well), and ignore fit (Mike James' numbers are emtpy, yeah - but the one thing he can do above average fits what they needed).

It just reeks of shifting criteria because we would never use VORP or WS to make points for/against the player himself, but to denigrate the cast/prop up the cast of the player we're arguing against. We make the best possible case for one player, and just an average - worst possible case for the other, instead of just basing it on a solid, non-shifting criteria.

(Though I fully sympathize with trying to argue on other people's level so that you have a shot of convincing them)

It's the kind of **** Chuck is sick of, I'm sure.

KG's supporting cast was bad, but when we get pages and pages detailing about just how bad they actually were it gets boring fast. It's the same story with every superstar. I don't need to hear 6000 words going over how terrible Marko Jaric and Ricky Davis were.

The pre-93 Hakeem discussion was great, albeit not enough to convince me that he had enough great years to match KG's superstar longevity. Best case he has what... 86, 88 90-97 as superstar years? He peaked higher, but not enough that KG's ~5 years of extra superstar seasons cannot overcome the difference in expected championships from their peaks.

Open to arguments though; specifically, was Hakeem's defense/passing from 86-90 always there, and just underutilized due to team setup? Is it a LeBron like situation where there were no capable ball handlers on the team so he had to take the brunt of playmaking responsibilities? Depending on the answers here I could see myself voting for Hakeem knstead in this spot, or voting for DRob as the alt instead.

I don't believe players change drastically year to year, so I'd have 86-97 as superstar seasons, the worst you could say is he had down years in 91/92. Depending on how you feel about 09 KG his tally is 14/15 superstar seasons vs Hakeem's 12 - and I'm hesitant to count 98/99 as on 86-97 Hakeem's level.

I would say his defense gradually improved before hitting his peak around 90 - there were a few weaknesses in early Hakeem's defense namely his overaggression. It didn't really hurt his team defenses as they were in top 25% in each year from 87-90.

Same with his passing - clear improvements that needed to be made before becoming a championship-level passer as drza alluded to in the last thread. However, he showed flashes, and the creativity/willingness were always there. The technical aspect needed to be refined a bit.

Overall, it's true that 93-95 Hakeem was better than pre-93...but not by like 18 miles. It's honestly the same arc you'd expect from any other ATG. What really surprises me about how people view Hakeem's early years is that he already showed superstar ability in 1986, so to me there shouldn't be any doubts about his status in the next few years. But for some reason people seem low on 87-90...I get 91/92 because they were down years (injury) but when he was healthy he was mostly the same guy he was in 90.

I could never see D-Rob above Hakeem. His playoff play is worse, his longevity is worse, and all his regular season advantages are cancelled out by not holding up in the playoffs. His optimal role didn't coincide with his peak, and I'm sure that Hakeem could've dominated in place of D-Rob on the Duncan Spurs. I'd say D-Rob left his prime when he got hurt in 97, and that along with his late entry contributed to his shorter prime.

[penbeast0]

...
Case for Bird: Underrated on defense based on DWS, DBPM, All-Defensive teams all supporting him. Strong defender for his position combined with all time great offense, elite portability supports his case. MVP votes from 84-86 shows voters at the time were thinking GOAT level for him. Fits the profile in my opinion of high impact players such as Manu or Iguodala - always has his hands in the right spot, etc. Case against: Playoff efficiency early and late in his career is an issue. Possible case he's not offensive GOAT level because he is too reliant on jumpshots. Ok longevity.

Sorry Doc, but I watched Bird from the year he entered the league to it's ending. He did make an All-D team based on his steal totals and was probably an average defensive PF early on, but he was never a good man defender either in the post or out on the floor and his defense steadily declined. Kevin McHale spent a lot of years covering for him. There is no way he is a strong defender for his position, best you could say is mediocre as his steals may have covered for a little of his lousy man ability. His All-D Awards are up with some of the bad rep based ones as pure fanboy voting by professionals.

[ardee]

I am voting Kobe here. Be warned, this is an extremely long post. A look at his relevant career: 1999-2013:

Early years and emergence as a superstar: 1999-2003

1999: This is an underrated year to kick things off. 20-5-4 on +3.8% TS and being one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. He played all 50 games in the shortened, sped-up season and given the fact he was relatively green, did all right in the Playoffs. Got an early taste of the Spurs, whom he would do nasty things to for the next 10 years on a regular basis. He was probably about as good as maybe 2013 Paul George in this year.

2000: Played the sidekick role perfectly to one of the GOAT peaks. Averaged 23-6-5 on +2.4% TS in a very slow and inefficient era. Doubled up as one of the top perimeter defenders in the league: it's hard to call anyone but Payton definitely better. He torched the Kings in the first round to 28 ppg on 50% from the floor. This was the only series that went the distance so they definitely needed it. In the next round he locked up Jason Kidd: badly. The guy had one good game where he shot 8-13, other than that he went 1-6, 5-9, 1-9, and 3-13. Along with a 25% TOV. Kobe was a beast on defense that year. We all know his heroic games 6 and 7 performances against the Blazers. The Finals were poor, admittedly, but the ankle injury is obvious, and he still won the Lakers a game by himself in game 4 OT.

Overall, I'd say this is on par with any Pippen year outside of '92, '94, and '95. The only players I'd definitely take ahead of him that year were Shaq, Duncan, Malone, KG and Mourning.

2001: The birth of superstar Kobe. I feel everyone knows how good his Playoffs were that year, but his regular season is underrated. Especially in the start of the season, he was outplaying Shaq. Shaq was having trouble with fouls and free-throw shooting (REALLY bad, was going through a sub 40% stretch), so Kobe took over early and averaged 32-5-5 on a 117 ORtg for about 30 games, while Shaq was at about 24-13-4 on 106 ORtg. For the first half of the season before the AS Break, it's arguable Kobe was the best player in the league, considering if you remember Kobe was still ELITE on defense that year.

He then began suffering some niggling injuries, and the team suffered. Then Shaq got his groove back, and once Kobe was healthy as well the team was clicking on all cylinders. They were both more or less on cruise control against the Blazers, and then took turns dropping 40/15 games on the poor Kings. Kobe had his best ever series against the Spurs, and was 32-7-6 on 121 ORtg against the entire Western conference. He really was playing better than Shaq at that point. If someone wants to use the Finals gap (Kobe still did play well after game 1, 27-9-6 on 55% TS) to rank Shaq ahead for the whole Playoffs, I guess its fair, but Kobe WAS the driving force for the offense for the majority of the Playoffs for the best Playoff team ever.

He was undoubtedly second to only Shaq that year. I can't see any reason to rank Duncan over him that year, not when Duncan had a real solid team around him with a D-Rob who led the league in WS/48, and got so badly trounced and destroyed by the Lakers.

2002: A bit of a down-year for him. He still had a good regular season, 25/6/6 on a 112 ORtg, but didn't hit the heights of 2001. Worth noting he had to carry the team more with Shaq missing 15 games. The supporting cast was pretty poor by that point. Fisher played the whole season for a change, but Grant was gone, Horry was aging, and the Lakers were dependent on guys like Samaki Walker and Devean George for reliable contributions. It was impressive the way Shaq and Kobe got the team to a title that year. Kobe was the best player in a beatdown of the Spurs and MVP Duncan, and against the Kings he put up 31/11/6 in games 6 and 7, him and Shaq dragging the Lakers back from the abyss. He also had his best Finals of the Shaq era, 27/6/6 on 62% TS against the best defensive team in the league.

I'd rank Shaq/Duncan over him (hard choice between those two that year), and I can see some kind of argument for Garnett but don't buy it. This was the best supporting cast KG ever had before 2004, and they still finished with a below average defense and got roasted by the Mavs. I'm not seeing the impact that year. In 2003 I'll rank KG ahead because of his improved offensive game and he really did do less with more. This year I think Kobe's value as an offensive constant able to put consistent pressure on the defense. beats out whatever KG was doing.... especially since I really don't like his defense that year. I have no clue what 2002 KG was doing against the Mavs, it looked like he was playing some kind of crazy one man zone. Furthers my point I made earlier that Minny KG is overrated on defense. So, Kobe is third.

2003: One of the best years of his career. Perfect storm, his all-around game really came together. His 3-point shot was like a pull-up 5 footer at that point, had it almost on automatic. He averaged 28-8-7 for the first 40 games, almost LeBron-like. He really had to carry a pretty awful team for some time with Shaq out. Still, the team was dysfunctional and plodding by the half-way point, 19-23 through 42 games. Phil asked Kobe to take a bigger role in the offense, and he did. 41-5-3 on 59% TS over the next 14 games, leading the Lakers to a 12-2 record over that stretch, putting them over .500 for good and into the thick of the Playoff seedings. He closed the year out with several more monster games, including the 55 point one against Jordan with 9 threes, 42 in the first half.

At the close of the regular season, I'd say Kobe was right there with Duncan and KG for the best player in the league. He was very effective against the Wolves, but I will admit that the injury + shot selection a little out of control in the Spurs series harmed the Lakers. Still, if Horry's shot had gone in in game 5, Kobe would have successfully made up for it all by leading the Lakers back from 25 down, and was anyone stopping a 4th straight title then?

I have him 3rd this year, behind Duncan and KG. Shaq and McGrady battling it out for 4th/5th. I can't see Shaq over him this year, not when the Lakers season turned around after it was KOBE who took a bigger role and put the team on his back.

So far, we're looking at a very good sidekick year where he was in the 6-7 range in the league, and 3 top 3 years, one of which he was the second best player in the league.

The in-between years: 2004-2005

Going onto the rest of his career:

2004/2005: The two worst years of his prime, I'm clubbing them together. 2004 in particular really smarts. He's coming off an epic season that propelled him into the MJ discussion, and now his raw numbers and efficiency drop across the board, plus he misses 17 games. The raw numbers are explainable, he was now splitting possessions with three other HOFs, and it's possible that all of them were affected by a system that just did not fit the roster very well. Still, it was a notch below '01 and '03, and even '02. He still kept it up defensively though. He had a terrible Rockets series efficiency-wise, but then killed the Spurs (30/6/6 over the four comeback games). Average against the Wolves and had the worst series of his career in the Finals. He played well defensively though, locking down Rip, converse to Shaq who killed it offensively and was a sieve on defense. I place equal responsibility on those two for the Finals loss. In any normal year, it'd be enough for me to rank both out of the top 5, but this was such a weak year that after KG/Duncan I have to rank Shaq and Kobe at nos. 3 and 4. I'll say this, Kobe is probably the weakest number 4 as far as I can remember, in 2004.

2005 is an underestimated year. 28-6-6 on 56% TS, 109 On-Court ORtg with a truly terrible supporting casts. I've seen several nonsensical posts about how good guys like Brian Grant and Chucky Atkins were and it makes me shake my head. If Kobe and Odom had been healthy they'd have still made the Playoffs (32-29 through 61 games), but Rudy's retirement and the injuries just really took their toll. Kobe still performed well individually, started the season averaging 29-7-7 with a bunch of triple doubles in the first 30 games, with the Lakers at 16-12. I still have no problem ranking him possibly near the end of the top 10, this was a very strong year for the league. Nash, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Wade, Shaq, McGrady, and Stoudemire would all be over him.

Now we enter Kobe's true prime. Right now we have a top 2 year, two top 3 years, a top 4 year (admittedly very weak), and two years where he's close to the bottom of the top 10. Not bad for a pre-prime guy.[/spoiler]

The volume years: 2006/2007

2006: What a season. What a player. I'm going to leave this to one of the best posters to have ever been active on this on the board, ShaqAttack, because he had a GOAT level post on '06 Kobe.

In hindsight, I think Nash was a good choice for 2005, though I was in the "Shaq was robbed" crowd at the time. However, I don't think Nash was the right choice in 2006. I'd go with Kobe in 2006.

First I will say that since the MVP is the closest things the NBA has to a best player award, I try to keep best player in mind to some degree, though of course, I don't always think it should go to the best player since games played and record are factors. But to me, 2006 was the most obvious year he was the best player in the league. I think he was the best in '07 as well, but you could at least make the case for Duncan in '07 and Paul in '08.

Anyway, not only were Kobe's individual feats exceptional in 2006, but they led to the Lakers overachieving and exceeding most expectations following a 34-48 season. Phil asked Kobe to carry the offense because many of the players didn't know the triangle and probably due to their lack of talent as well, and he did so in a remarkable way.

Warning, this will be a LONG post since I will look over their entire supporting casts.

Kobe only had one other player on the roster you could call a legit NBA starter, and that was Lamar Odom who was inconsistent throughout the first half. Odom averaged just 14/9/5 on 45% shooting and just 53 TS% in the first half, though Kobe still carried the Lakers to a .500 record at 26-26 while averaging 35/5/4 on 44/34/84 shooting and 55 TS%. Odom was obviously a good player, but he shouldn't be your second best player by a huge margin as he was on the 2006 Lakers when he was relied on to play 40.3 mpg. We saw how valuable Odom could be when he became the 3rd guy after Gasol was acquired and he was noticeably more comfortable playing his game. His versatile skill set can obviously be an asset with his strong rebounding, ball-handling skills at 6'10" and the ability to get the rebound and create or finish the fast break by himself. This was also the last year Lamar played a lot of the 3 which had been his position as a young player with the Clippers and when Phil tried Odom in the Scottie Pippen point forward role with mixed results, though passing has always been one of Lamar's strengths and he did lead the Lakers with 5.5 apg while averaging just 2.7 turnovers. Lamar did have talent as a scorer as evidenced by his transition game, he could be a threat to create off the dribble, had the length to finish, and while I wouldn't say he was ever a good shooter, he did shoot 37.2% on 3s in 2006 while making one per game. However, Odom couldn't go right which made him predictable, as mentioned, he wasn't a great shooter, and perhaps most importantly, he lacked the consistent focus and aggressiveness to be a really good scorer so scoring really wasn't his forte as evidenced by the fact that his season high was 27 points in 2006. However, Odom became more consistent late in the year and played like a borderline all-star averaging 16/9/6 on 53% shooting in the second half as well as 43% on 3s and 60 TS%. Kobe also raised his game during this time averaging 36/5/5 on 46/36/87 shooting and 57 TS% as the Lakers went 19-11, a 52 win pace. Pretty impressive to win at that pace with just one legitimately good, but not great teammate.

As for the rest of the team, they had Smush Parker starting at PG and playing 33.8 mpg. Smush was a bit of a surprise for LA this year, but to put things in perspective, despite being just 24 at the time, Smush didn't even last 2 more years in the NBA. Then there was Kwame Brown whose only legitimate asset was his post defense, and he can only be described as a liability at the offensive end. Of course there's the infamous small hands which prevented him from being a reliable catch and finish player around the rim, one of the more basic skills asked of a big man offensively, his footwork and shooting touch were horrible leaving him without a single decent post move, he was a terrible free throw shooter at 54.5% and he could get rattled very easily. Chris Mihm was another starter for most of the year, and while he had a decent offensive skill set, he wasn't much of a defender or rebounder, and the Lakers played their best ball by far after Mihm's injury so he wasn't an impact player. Devean George was one of the few holdovers from the champion Lakers, and while he was a decent defender, he was a poor offensive player who didn't shoot particularly well at just 40 FG% and 31.2 3P% and couldn't create. Then there was Luke Walton whose only real skill was passing. Brian Cook's only value could be as a stretch 4, but he wasn't a good defender, rebounder or post player. Finally, Sasha Vujacic was in the rotation getting 19 mpg despite the fact that he shot a horrendous 34.6% from the floor for the season and even his 3 point shooting was underwhelming at 34.3%.

That's the team Kobe made 7th in scoring and 8th in offensive rating, and I'd bet they were near the top in the second half when Odom finally played more consistently.

Nash's Suns were obviously a more potent offense, and they were 1st in scoring and 2nd in offensive rating, but they had a lot more talent to work with, and had a team who not only fit well in D'Antoni's system, but played off of Nash well as almost all of them were dangerous 3 point shooters, slashers or good open court players. Shawn Marion had a much better year than Odom and made the all-nba 3rd team. Marion averaged 22/11 on 53% shooting with 2 spg, 1.7 bpg and just 1.5 turnovers per game. Obviously, Marion benefited from playing with Nash since his strengths offensively were his finishing in the open court, his slashing and he liked the corner 3, but Marion was already a 20 ppg scorer before he played with Nash so Nash just made him more efficient. Of course, Marion's versatility, particularly defensively was very valuable as well. Boris Diaw was also voted the Most Improved Player as he averaged 13/7/6 on 53% shooting. Diaw has always been a great passer, he had a nice post game, made his mid-range shots, and despite playing a different style, he gave the Suns something similar to what Odom gave the Lakers with his versatility. Diaw was a forward who had entered the league as a guard with the Hawks and was often the Suns' biggest player on the court as the de facto center while being an excellent secondary facilitator. Diaw also didn't start the year as a starter, but played his way into that role and like Odom, got better as the year went on averaging 16/7/7 on 57% shooting in the second half. Nash also got a great year out of Raja Bell who in addition to his defense, shot lights out from 3. No question he capitalized on Nash's passing, but you still have to make the shots, and Bell did just that averaging 14.7 ppg while making 2.5 threes per game while shooting 44.2%, which was 5th best in the NBA, and he was 3rd in made 3s with 197, just behind Gilbert Arenas who only made 2 more, but took one more game to do it. Bell was also 3rd in eFG% at 56.3%. Leandro Barbosa was one of the fastest players in the league and averaged 13 ppg while coming off the bench most of the year. He complemented his speed with a very dangerous 3 point shot as evidenced by his 44.4 3P%, which was 3rd best in the league and his 55.8 eFG%. They also had Tim Thomas late in the year, and he was always a talented offensive player at 6'10" who averaged 11 ppg in just 24 mpg for them while shooting 43% on 3s and had even more shooters in Eddie House and James Jones who averaged between 9-10 ppg, shot about 39% on 3s, made 1.5 of them per game and did it in just 17.5 and 23.6 mpg, respectively. To round out the cast was Kurt Thomas who was one of their few big men, but a good defender and rebounder with a consistent mid-range shot who was definitely better than any of the Lakers' big men excluding Odom. Not surprisingly, Phoenix finished first at 39.9% and led the league with 837 made 3s, 212 more than the Warriors who were 2nd.

Given the enormous disparity in the talent, I'd argue the Lakers having the 8th best offense was more impressive than Phoenix having the 2nd best offense. Kobe's cast was really bad lacking a legit 2nd option, being surrounded by fringe players other than Odom, lacking shooters as evidenced by the fact that they were in the bottom half in 3P% and a pretty mediocre defense(which was actually virtually identical to the Suns' defense statistically.) The only thing you can really say is that the Lakers were a solid rebounding team outrebounding opponents by 2 rpg. Nash's cast certainly lacked size, but there's no question they had loads of offensive talent with more shooters than anyone could hope for, versatile forwards like Marion and Diaw and if you look at their sixth man Leandro Barbosa, he was definitely a more dangerous scorer than any of Kobe's teammates.

There's so many things to look at, but aside from how impressive it is to lead your team to a very productive offensive season while being asked to play 41 mpg and take over 27 shots per game, just look at how each of these team's offenses fared with and without the stars. The Suns offensive rating was a phenomenal 114.8 with Nash on the court, but still respectable without him at 106.4, which was just above league average. Meanwhile, the Lakers had an excellent 112.6 offensive rating with Kobe on the court, but it was horrendous with him off the court at 93.7. Finally, it's worth noting that Nash played 35.4 mpg, while Kobe played 41 mpg as mentioned before. What it comes down to is there's no question in my mind that Kobe was a better player and had a better season, and there's also no question in my mind that the disparity in team success was not nearly as great as the disparity in talent, and Kobe's success was more impressive considering their situations.

The more I think about this season, the more I'm leaning towards it as Kobe's peak over 2008.

Historical stuff from Bryant. This is a year, offensively, I'd rank only slightly below peak Magic/Bird/Jordan/LeBron. He was at his peak athleticism wise, jumper was there, he could basically do whatever he wanted to any defense he wanted.

Undoubtedly the best in the league. To me, when I was watching back then, it wasn't even close. Only Dirk really had an argument. Once Odom started playing at a decent level for the last 30 games, Kobe had the Lakers at a 111.5 ORtg, 0.1 behind the Mavs for the league lead. Kobe was anchoring a league-best offense with ONE other serviceable offensive player. This says it all I think.

2007: The most efficient season of Kobe's career. It also gave a good glance of the game-management and facilitation skills that Kobe would show in 2008-10.

Through 39 games, he had the Lakers at 26-13. In fact, they were 14-6 through the first 20 games before Odom got hurt. Odom was playing like a near AS, averaging 18-9-5 on good efficiency. This should really dispell notions that Kobe at that era couldn't play with good teammates. Walton was benefiting too, averaging 12-5-4 on 50-43-75 through that good start. Kobe was playing steady basketball as the captain of a ship that was cruising along at a 112.2 ORtg, with 28-6-6 on 59% TS.

Then the injuries really took their toll. As soon as Odom returned, Walton got injured. And Odom was playing far worse than he was pre-injury. Kobe continued to play his part-facilitator role, but the team was just too bad for it to be effective. With Kobe, a broken Odom, and a D-League roster, the Lakers stumbled to a 7-18 record over the next 25 games. They were going to be out of the Playoffs, until Phil told Kobe to completely take over the offense. He did, to the tune of 40-6-5 on 58% TS. The Lakers managed to crack .500 for that stretch at 9-8, showing the difference between Kobe taking a step back (like his detractors love him to) and actually taking control of the offense on a terrible team.

His Playoffs were good by his own standards, but not spectacular. His team was so outmatched there really wasn't much he could do. It is memorable for that 45-6-6 game 3 when he threw the kitchen sink at the Suns and somehow came away with a win despite the Lakers getting 86% of their points from him, Odom and Kwame.

He probably was better than in '06 when he really got going, but for the whole season, probably just slightly worse. I'd say he was the best in the league again, Nash and Duncan were a bit better than in '06, but his main contenders in '06 were Dirk and Wade and both of them had much weaker years.

The MVP and repeat years: 2008-10

2008: The promised land. People love to claim that it was just Pau that turned the franchise around but Kobe had the Lakers at 25-11 through 36 games with his second option, Bynum, averaging 13-10. That's one of the worse second options in the league, and Kobe still had them comfortably in the middle of the WCF standings, flitting between the 2-4 seeds.

The Bynum injury, by all rights, should have killed the Lakers season. Possibly scared of the prospect of being the second option again, Odom went into a funk and averaged 12-10 on 42% shooting over the next 11 games. Kobe refused to let the team slip, going into supernova, averaging 34-8-6 on 61% TS in the same stretch, somehow keeping Fisher, Sasha, Turiaf, Farmar and Walton at a 6-5 record until the front office found a way to replace Bynum's production.

The Gasol trade was the best thing to happen to Kobe's career. It showed just how effective he could make a team with one other truly reliable offensive player. Kobe increased his efficiency, rebounding, facilitation and played better defense, with his volume remaining pretty much the same. Gasol's efficiency jumped up from 50.1% FG to 58.9% FG playing with Kobe, and the Lakers went 22-5 in the games that both played.

Overall, Kobe averaged 28-6-5 with elite defense, on 57% TS. The Lakers finished with a 7.3 SRS, and this was on a team with another truly reliable player for less than a third of the season. This was an underestimated carry job by Kobe. The Lakers could have slipped into oblivion at any time but he didn't let them.

The Playoffs were the cherry on the cake. ShaqAttack again:

The Lakers were virtually unbeatable with Gasol at 22-4 excluding the 2-3 minute game and then dominated the West including the defending champion Spurs in 5 during the WCF. The Spurs were no joke either since they had Duncan who was only slightly past his prime and 2 other all-star caliber players in Parker and Ginobili who was at his peak and probably the 2nd best shooting guard behind only Kobe that year. What was so impressive about Kobe's playoff run is that he almost seemed to be toying with his West opponents as he averaged 31.9 ppg, 6.1 rpg and 5.8 apg on 50.9 FG% in 15 games during the 3 West rounds playing that team-oriented style. Despite the finals loss, I still consider this Kobe's best playoff run. He had that game vs Denver when he shot 18/27 overall, 5/9 on 3s and 8/9 from the line for 49 points, and while I haven't seen the game since, I remember him being so hot that it looked like he could have had 60+ early had he pushed the issue, but LA won easily by 15 points.

32-6-6 on 61% TS against 3 top 6 defenses and 50 win teams. The Finals against the Cs was underwhelming, but as good as the Lakers were the Celtics were just so loaded they were clearly outmatched. I'm not one of those Laker fans that think Bynum would've made a difference. The big 3 were playing at a historic level at that point. Hold it against him if you wish, but remember, make sure to hold KG's failures against him too when his team is lacking in comparative talent.

I have Kobe no. 1 again, the last year he will be at this spot. I do think he was the best overall player for '06-'08, and in terms of three-year peaks it's not quite in the '91-'93 MJ, '63-'65 Russell or '66-'68 Wilt level but I think it matches up fairly well with guys like Bird and Hakeem.

2009: I summed this up with a post in a thread I made some time ago:

I was watching parts of the Lakers '09 Playoffs and it just occurred to me that 2009 doesn't get brought up enough when talking about Kobe's best seasons, and indeed some of the best seasons by a wing, ever.

The Lakers had a 10 game lead on one of the toughest conferences in history. Not to say Kobe didn't have a great cast, but this was a 7.8 SRS team and he was +11.1 on/off for the +/- guys. For an elite team, it doesn't get too much higher, because they aren't going to be putrid when the star is off, they wouldn't be elite then. His +116.1 On-Court ORtg is among the highest we've seen from a player not on the Suns dynasty.

He was also still quite elite on defense, probably the last year he was consistently up there.

The Lakers cruised to a 37-9 record, and then Bynum got injured. Many people feared a slowdown, but Kobe took on the extra load and averaged a 32-5-5 over the next 12 games, leading the Lakers to a 11-1 record. That stretch shows he was still absolutely capable of scoring how many ever points he needed to, just like '06 and '07, he just took it easy to get the team-mates into the game as well.

That stretch put the Lakers in the driving seat for the conference and they cruised from then on. They beat every other contender, home or away. Snapped the Celtics' 19 and 12 game winning streaks, and the Cavs' 23 game home winning streak. Kobe kept them focused as hell, this was probably when his team-mates' fear of him transformed into a determination to please. His leadership had real, tangible impact on the Lakers that season.

Then in the Playoffs, the Lakers stomped. The Houston series was a minor blip where they were losing focus from time to time, but every time they lost they responded with a blowout. After that 118-78 result, did they ever look like losing that series? Kobe was still consistent enough in that series, it was the supporting cast who couldn't keep it together mentally. He did, however, along with Phil, keep getting them back on track and winning all the statement games. He did so while dealing with Battier and Artest tag-teaming him on defense.

The Denver series was his magnum opus. Has anyone forgotten that 'bad mofo' face? Has anyone forgotten all the insane shots he hit with a hand in his face, Dahntay and the other Nuggets playing picture perfect defense? Has anyone forgotten the way he pulled a team that was struggling to close game 1 to a victory by scoring or assisting 13 of the last 15 points? Has anyone forgotten that game 6 when he basically looked untouchable, going for a 35/10 and ripping the Nuggets to shreds while the Lakers won by 30? Has anyone forgotten the ridiculous 35/6/6 overall performance he put together?

I'm not saying he was better than LeBron that year, but this should be considered one of the best seasons by a wing ever. His numbers weren't as good as they used to be, but what was he supposed to do, put up nicer stats when he had Odom/Gasol and lose instead? He did everything his team needed him to, and when his guys were sagging, he picked up all the slack and dominated, as we saw in multiple stretches throughout the season.

Really, I think the only Playoff run by a wing definitely better than this (after Jordan) is '12 LeBron. What do you guys think?

LeBron was definitely better this year. No question in my mind. But Kobe was a deserved no. 2. I can get ranking Wade over him, but I think Kobe played just as well in the later Playoff rounds as Wade did in the regular season, and Wade really didn't have a good Playoffs at all.

2010: A very underrated year for Kobe.

This was the year he completed the development of his post-game, and it was more effective than Jordan's ever was. Here's Bill Simmons on Kobe during the first half of the season, a stretch when Bryant had the Lakers at 25-6 through 31 games (more than half of which Pau missed by the way), averaging 30-6-5 on 57% TS.

I can't remember anyone reinventing himself historically as well as Kobe did these past 16 months. The Olympics, then the 2009 Finals, then the media victory lap that everyone ate up … and then, when it seemed as if we were headed for a decline, he reinvented himself as the second coming of post-baseball Jordan and developed an even nastier, more physical post-up game than MJ had. I can't believe what I am watching. It's staggering. He's like a 6-foot-6 Hakeem Olajuwon. I went into this season thinking Kobe would be able to last just one or two more seasons at a high level; now I'm wondering whether he could play like this well into his late 30s. Why not? I mean, Karl Malone did it. Like Malone, Kobe is a workout freak who takes care of his body and seems predisposed to staying healthy, anyway. Malone averaged a 26-10 and made second-team All-NBA in the 1999-2000 season when he was 36 years old … and then he played four years after that. Kobe is only 31. Could he replicate Malone's longevity and consistency?

He did get injured later on, yes, no one is disputing that. But before that, he was playing as well as he ever had, and picked up at that level in the Playoffs. I don't know why people were shocked in the Playoffs, he played just as well in the first half... For 9 games before his injury, he averaged 37-7-5 on 58% TS!

I'm not going to lie and say the second half of the regular season was pretty. Coming out of the regular season one could argue he was behind LeBron, Durant and Howard all.

But then he went and had one of his best Playoffs ever. He still struggled with his knee for a bit at the beginning of the OKC series, but after game 5 had his knee drained and then ripped off an all-time hot streak. He averaged 31-7-6 on 59% TS over the last 18 games of the regular season. He was easily the best player in the Playoffs that year, and I think it should boost him over Durant and Howard. I'd still give LeBron the edge that year, with Kobe 2nd. Wade, Nash, Durant and Howard fight it out for spots 3-5.

He had that historic Phoenix series, averaging 34-7-8 on a 135 ORtg, 64% TS!!! People don't appreciate how dominant he was in that series.

His Finals got marred by game 7, but before that he was doing 30/7/4 on 56% TS. Against the kind of defense he was facing, that's remarkable to say the least.

It's hard to argue against what Kobe did in the Playoffs that year.

Overall, I think Kobe from 2008-10 was more impressive than second threepeat Jordan in the Playoffs... But that's just me.

________________________________________________________________________

I know that was a ridiculously long post, lemme give it to you in cliffs:

-2000 was a great second option year, comparable to prime Pippen. Got the Lakers out of several tight situations (game 7 Portland, game 4 Indy), and doubled up as the best perimeter defender in the league. Perfect second option to Shaq.

-2001: Underrated regular season, historical Playoffs. Carried the Lakers while Shaq was less than his usual self at the start, combined with him for the best run by a duo in NBA history in the Playoffs, was Jordan-esque in the WC Playoffs (32-7-6 on 60% TS).

-2002: Slightly underwhelming regular season but still solid. Killed the Spurs in the Playoffs, came up big in games 6 and 7 against the Kings with Shaq, and had the best finals of the threepeat part of his career.

-2003: Became a complete player. Arguably his best defensive year, added the 3 point shot. Had an all-time 35/40 point game streak to drag the Lakers back into Playoff contention

-2006/2007: All-time offensive years. Dragged garbage to top 7-8 offenses, and when Odom actually played well and gave him a good second option he took the team to the best offense in the league for that same stretch, in both seasons.

-2008: Peak year. Got his defense back. Showed that he could make a bad team decent as well as make a decent team elite, as soon as Pau arrived. What's impressive is the Lakers had a 7.3 SRS with Pau only playing 27 games for them that year. Historically dominant in the Playoffs.

-2009: lead one of the best Laker teams ever despite Bynum getting injured AGAIN, with Pau again his only real reliable teammate. Dominated in the Playoffs, had possibly his best series ever against Denver, and was decisive in the Finals against Orlando.

-2010: Killed it for the first two months in the regular season, clearly the second best player behind LeBron for that stretch. Developed the post-game. Slipped into injuries, but shook them off in the Playoffs to dominate again. Killed the Jazz and Suns, had a good series against Boston considering the level of defense he was facing.

-From 2000 to 2010, here's how I'd rank Kobe in the league year by year: 8, 2, 3, 3, 4, 9, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2. Other than the blip of 2005, that is stunning consistency over a long stretch. Comparable to prime Bird easily.

-In terms of peak play, Bird was better at his absolute zenith, but Kobe gives you 7 years at that level: 2001, 2003, 2006-10, while Bird has 1984-88. The two extra years make a real difference, at that level.

I don't think I can do more talking about the meat of Kobe's career. I'll answer any questions anyone has, and expand more on 2011-13 later.

Vote: Kobe Bryant

2nd: Larry Bird

[Outside]

Repeat of my vote in the last thread.

Vote: Bird
Alternate: Hakeem

Next on my list are Shaq, Jerry West, and KG.[Shaq voted in at number 8]

Bird had a tremendous will to win and is the most cold-blooded killer I've ever seen on the court. I look at his percentages and question how they can be that low because it seemed like the guy made every big shot. It was like there was nothing you could do to stop him or rattle him. The stories from opponents about how he'd tell you where he was going to shoot the ball and then do exactly that. He'd rip out your heart and dance on your grave. From his perspective, he was there to win, and that's what he was going to do.

Bird was a great shooter, great passer, and very good rebounder. His defense is much discussed, with some pointing to him being on all-defense teams three times and others pointing to his lack of quickness making him ineffective as an individual defender in space. I think the truth is somewhere in between, leaning toward him being an overall good defender. As others pointed out, he wasn't the quickest guy or a great leaper, but he had quick hands and very good size. He was also incredibly smart and used that to great effect defensively. You weren't going to anchor your defense around him, but he was an excellent complement to Parish and McHale.

Bird has three titles, three MVPs, and two finals MVPs. He comes up short in longevity compared to other candidates, but he had such an immediate impact, leading a team that was 29-53 the year before to a 61-21 record, and leading the team in points, rebounds, and steals and second in assists. He got better from there and had a peak that went from his rookie season through the 1987-88 season. He had productive seasons after that, but injuries diminished him from those peak seasons.

Hakeem gets my alternate vote over everyone else based on being a complete player, having good peak and longevity, and postseason performance. I put Bird over him due to his postseason resume, clutch play, and that cold-bloodedness that combined with his will to win makes him the more formidable opponent.

Here's why I voted Bird and Hakeem over the other current candidates mentioned.

vs KG: KG doesn't have the sustained postseason resume. It may be his misfortune to have played with weaker rosters, but that's the way it goes. I understand the advanced metrics argument, but to me, that doesn't wipe away the disadvantage KG has in the basic areas. As I've mentioned, I currently have him 12th on my list, which is rare air, and I'm comfortable with that.

vs Mikan: I'm not sure where to place Mikan. His in-era dominance was fantastic, but that era excluded black players. I do think he'd be outstanding in any era, but I'm not sure just how outstanding. I have him currently lower on my list (27th) that I suspect end up, and I'm open to arguments in his favor.

vs Kobe: I downgrade him for poor efficiency. He has good assist numbers, but not as good as they should be for someone who was a primary ballhandler most of his career. I currently have him 13th, right behind KG.

vs David Robinson: Robinson's playoff resume isn't as impressive. I also give Hakeem the edge because it's hard for me to shake the destruction Hakeem brought down on Robinson in the WCF after Robinson's MVP was announced.

vs Dirk: I just don't get Dirk being in this neighborhood. He transformed the PF position into a stretch 4, and he's one of the great shooters in league history, and he has great longevity, but what else did he truly excel in? Good rebounder, but not a good defender, low assist totals, numerous early playoff exits. I have him in the 30s on my list. From what I understand, he does well in certain advanced metrics, but as I've argued, those are factors to move someone up or down a few spots or serve as a tiebreaker, not be a trump card that negates every other argument.