Is Kobe a good demarcation point for the top 10 GOAT? Introducing "The Kobe Test"

[ceiling raiser]

I was actually thinking about this and it’s pretty fascinating. Kobe seems to be the guy who is the “best of the rest”, that is to say guys who were not in that all-time pantheon in terms of on-court impact.

The Oscar thread forced me to think hard. I think due to how much talent we’ve seen in the league (in what, 67 years since the shot clock was introduced?) there are probably 10 guys who are clearly better than Kobe. I propose the following...

“The Kobe Test”: Did the player in question add clearly more value over the course of his career than did Kobe?

My thoughts...

Indisputably Better - Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, and Duncan.

Certainly Better (in my opinion) - Russell (slight hesitation due to era), Garnett, Magic.

Very Likely Better - Shaq, Hakeem, Curry (would like to see more sustained play).

So that's what, 10 guys? Giannis, Jokic, and Durant are open books (Durant is probably closer to the end). Oscar and Dirk are hard to place, as is Wilt (EDIT: would add West here too). There are a ton of other guys who clearly peaked higher but didn't necessarily have better careers.

Thoughts? How many players pass “The Kobe Test” in your opinion?

[Heej]

Yup Kobe is the litmus test for me as far as whether you're ready to test the resistance into that upper echelon. If you're better than him you're likely on par with or able to outplay GOAT contenders multiple games in a given series. Steph is the perfect guy to use as a trial case. To me the fact that he's likely peaking higher than Kobe right now means that he's someone that can match production with people like Jordan, Bron, Kareem, etc.

To be honest I kind of put Kobe, Hakeem, and Shaq as the trio that make up the bottom support for the top 10-ish level. You need to clearly outpace them in order to break your way in.

Current players I have realistically testing this are Curry, KD, maybe Giannis, and maaaybe Luka one day. Curry and KD likely come up just short, although they're comparable levels of players that can have comparable levels of total career impact when it's all said and done. I think Curry has a better shot if he's gonna continue playing like this lol. He's got one 'best in the world' year going right now, and at this point I'm not sure it's out of the question he could have 1 or 2 more along with a couple more top 3-5 years and another ring. If that all plays out I think I'll have to think he passes the Kobe Test, but it's a 50/50 shot for me which is much better odds than I would've given him 2-3 years ago. KD likely falls just short of it.

Giannis and Luka the jury is still out. Sorry I went on a whole diatribe and hopefully it doesn't derail the thread, but yes OP I agree with your whole premise of Kobe being the litmus test and would add that Hakeem and Shaq are other indicators at that level.

[eminence]

The clearly above Kobe list is pretty short for me - LeBron, Duncan, KAJ, Russell, MJ, KG is the list for me. There are some others I'd put above him or at least listen to, but those are the ones that are clear.

[Doctor MJ]

Is Kobe a good demarcation point for the top 10 GOAT?

I'd recommend not focusing in on Top X "levels" as if they are a real thing that you can count on.

At any given point in time, perhaps Player A is the #10 guy in all of history, but if he is, it's only a matter of time before he gets surpassed by more players.

As for myself, I can definitely find compelling the argument that there are less than 10 guys with better careers than Kobe, but there are also a few other guys I can make that argument about.

I tend to chew a lot on this group of 5: Wilt, Oscar, West, Shaq, Kobe.

I see good arguments, for example, of: Kobe > Wilt > West > Kobe.

When I get into these sort of comparison loops, it's hard to have one definitive ranking and it tends to be something I make a call on when I participate in a project where such calls are required.

[Doctor MJ]

“The Kobe Test”: Did the player in question add clearly more value over the course of his career than did Kobe?

My thoughts...

Indisputably Better - Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, and Duncan.

Certainly Better (in my opinion) - Russell (slight hesitation due to era), Garnett, Magic.

Very Likely Better - Shaq, Hakeem, Curry (would like to see more sustained play).

So that's what, 10 guys? Giannis, Jokic, and Durant are open books (Durant is probably closer to the end). Oscar and Dirk are hard to place, as is Wilt. There are a ton of other guys who clearly peaked higher but didn't necessarily have better careers.

Thoughts? How many players pass “The Kobe Test” in your opinion?

So I'll note with approval that you're focusing more on who was actually contributing more value in the moment compared to career. Both are valid lists, but I like that you're not punting on the question of whether more recent guys are better even if they've done less so far.

I find it very challenging to rate Kobe specifically compared to more recent guys because frankly more recent guys blow up the idea that Kobe was playing in a way that was at all as strong as guys do now. Back when Kobe played folks would defend his relatively weak efficiency relative to the top stars of the Jordan era by saying defense was tougher, but of course we've since seen people expand on the techniques that were producing ultra-efficiency by others during Kobe's era, and it's working like you'd hope. We now have guys with volume/efficiency that once again puts Kobe to shame.

Does that mean they are better than Kobe? Depends a lot on what you mean, because of course Kobe in this era would have looked different than in his own era. In particular, I think could have scaled his 3-point shooting more and would have thrived as a helio if he'd just have been born a bit later. Perhaps that leads to him being effective in this era than <insert player here>, so does that mean Kobe was the better player? There's no one right answer.

I will say this specifically:

I do consider Curry to be a better player than Kobe. Kobe's higher on my career GOAT list, but I just see all sorts of stuff demonstrating Curry as an outlier in this era on a level Kobe just wasn't back in his day, and so if Curry keeps it up, he's going to surpass Kobe on my career GOAT list.

Giannis & Jokic by contrast I'm going to have to see how it all plays out. They represent new types of players that are facing new types of counters. Time will tell how much becomes seen as gospel and how much ends up gimmick.

Kobe vs Durant is interesting. There you have a situation where there's a really good chance that I end up saying KD's the better player but Kobe had the better career. (Much depends on how things play out in Brooklyn.)

[ceiling raiser]

So I'll note with approval that you're focusing more on who was actually contributing more value in the moment compared to career. Both are valid lists, but I like that you're not punting on the question of whether more recent guys are better even if they've done less so far.

Thanks for the response. Four quick notes:

(1) West, who you mentioned, is a guy I'm also uncertain about. Along with Oscar and Wilt, this group is tough to parse in terms of impact (with Russell, there are more signals).
(2) Harden is a guy who was pacing to be superior to Kobe I'd say, but this season has been a real eye-opener. Either the rule change shaped his career, or his fitness caught up to him. I am inclined to say the former since a guy like Curry is unaffected, while players like Young and Lillard seem to be in the Harden class.
(3) There are other guys who I prefer in terms of their primes to Kobe (Robinson, Bird, Nash, in particular) but who I struggle to put clearly ahead because their primes weren't long enough.
(4) Dirk is the big wildcard here.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll note with approval that you're focusing more on who was actually contributing more value in the moment compared to career. Both are valid lists, but I like that you're not punting on the question of whether more recent guys are better even if they've done less so far.

Thanks for the response. Four quick notes:

(1) West, who you mentioned, is a guy I'm also uncertain about. Like Oscar and Wilt, I think all three are tough to parse in terms of impact (with Russell, there is less uncertainty).
(2) Harden is a guy who was pacing to be superior to Kobe I'd say, but this season has been a real eye-opener. Either the rule change shaped his career, or his fitness caught up to him. I am inclined to say the former since a guy like Curry is unaffected, while players like Young and Lillard seem to be in the Harden class.
(3) There are other guys who I prefer in terms of their primes to Kobe (Robinson, Bird, Nash, in particular) but who I struggle to put clearly ahead because their primes weren't long enough.
(4) Dirk is the big wildcard here.

Good thoughts!

(1) I expect I'd draft West ahead of Kobe today - so I'm really high on him. At the same time, hard to put West's career above Wilt's, and Wilt had nowhere near the impact on a basketball franchise as Kobe did to the flagship franchise of his period. I could see LA naming a freaking airport after Kobe like he was Benjamin Franklin, and the reality is that Wilt isn't anywhere near that important.

(2) With Harden there was always an issue where he was less impressive in the playoffs. People managed to forget that circa 2020 where they watched him put up solid numbers in a losing effort to the Lakers, but as someone who has said for a long time that I could see Harden figuring out enough tricks to be the most effective player in history, I don't think he ever did, and yeah, this year makes it look like whatever Harden does in the future, we've likely already seen his best. It'll be a pretty major upset for me if he ends up ahead of Kobe on my list.
(3) I see it similarly, though I've often put Bird above Kobe. Can see cases either way. With Nash specifically I'm on record saying I'd have rather had Nash out of the '96 draft than Kobe and that I think he could have been a superstar much earlier than he did if only others had understood what he was capable of in a smarter paradigm, but for my career GOAT I don't credit it with him being a superstar until he actually becomes one.
(4) I've debated Kobe vs Dirk a good deal, but I think I've always stuck with Kobe. I think the reality is that it took Dirk a good while to really develop an approach that scaled reliably through playoff competition. It maybe could have been otherwise, but as critical as I am of Kobe in a lot of ways, I do think he was a better playoff performer than he was a regular season performer, and that keeps him from sinking too far on my list.

[ceiling raiser]

(4) I've debated Kobe vs Dirk a good deal, but I think I've always stuck with Kobe. I think the reality is that it took Dirk a good while to really develop an approach that scaled reliably through playoff competition. It maybe could have been otherwise, but as critical as I am of Kobe in a lot of ways, I do think he was a better playoff performer than he was a regular season performer, and that keeps him from sinking too far on my list.

With Dirk in particular, is it the playmaking that's an issue, or the fact that he didn't move to the post consistently until later in his career (I think 09 was the first big year from the Synergy data)? If it's the former, are you lower on Hakeem than I am, or does his combination of elite vertical+horizontal defense in addition to resilient scoring make him safer?

With Robinson, I do wonder if there has been a bit of an overadjustment from the first wave of all-in-one box score stats that hasn't yet diminished. He has terrific WOWY, RAPM, and +/- data (from the Pollack books), but it almost feels like year after year of 29+ PER and .250+ was too strong a prior (I think this has been the case with Paul as well, and to a lesser extent Wade). That said, Robinson is less resilient a scorer than Hakeem or Dirk, and is probably a clearly worse passer than anybody else in the top 20 (unless Moses is in there).

[70sFan]

That said, Robinson is less resilient a scorer than Hakeem or Dirk, and is probably a clearly worse passer than anybody else in the top 20 (unless Moses is in there).

Nice debate guys!

I have small nitpick to the bolded part though - I'd take Robinson over Hakeem as a passer quite comfortably. It depends on what's your top 20, but I'd take him over Dirk as well in that aspect.

[Pelly24]

Yup Kobe is the litmus test for me as far as whether you're ready to test the resistance into that upper echelon. If you're better than him you're likely on par with or able to outplay GOAT contenders multiple games in a given series. Steph is the perfect guy to use as a trial case. To me the fact that he's likely peaking higher than Kobe right now means that he's someone that can match production with people like Jordan, Bron, Kareem, etc.

To be honest I kind of put Kobe, Hakeem, and Shaq as the trio that make up the bottom support for the top 10-ish level. You need to clearly outpace them in order to break your way in.

Current players I have realistically testing this are Curry, KD, maybe Giannis, and maaaybe Luka one day. Curry and KD likely come up just short, although they're comparable levels of players that can have comparable levels of total career impact when it's all said and done. I think Curry has a better shot if he's gonna continue playing like this lol. He's got one 'best in the world' year going right now, and at this point I'm not sure it's out of the question he could have 1 or 2 more along with a couple more top 3-5 years and another ring. If that all plays out I think I'll have to think he passes the Kobe Test, but it's a 50/50 shot for me which is much better odds than I would've given him 2-3 years ago. KD likely falls just short of it.

Giannis and Luka the jury is still out. Sorry I went on a whole diatribe and hopefully it doesn't derail the thread, but yes OP I agree with your whole premise of Kobe being the litmus test and would add that Hakeem and Shaq are other indicators at that level.

Jokic is gonna be fighting for top 10 status. Should make 8 or 9 all-nba first teams, have a few MVPs.

[ceiling raiser]

I have small nitpick to the bolded part though - I'd take Robinson over Hakeem as a passer quite comfortably. It depends on what's your top 20, but I'd take him over Dirk as well in that aspect.

Hm good question. Probably something like:

Magic/Nash/Bird
LeBron/Oscar/Stockton
Jordan/West/Curry
Kobe/Durant/Garnett
Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Wilt/Duncan
Hakeem/Dirk

excluding Robinson. So you think he should be in that next highest tier?

(This isn't a set in stone top 20, some others are pretty close.)

[70sFan]

I have small nitpick to the bolded part though - I'd take Robinson over Hakeem as a passer quite comfortably. It depends on what's your top 20, but I'd take him over Dirk as well in that aspect.

Hm good question. Probably something like:

Magic/Nash/Bird
LeBron/Oscar/Stockton
Jordan/West/Curry
Kobe/Durant/Garnett
Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Wilt/Duncan
Hakeem/Dirk

excluding Robinson. So you think he should be in that next highest tier?

(This isn't a set in stone top 20, some others are pretty close.)

Assuming this top 20, yeah I'd have Robinson in the 4th tier. I might separate them a bit differently (probably have Kareem and Duncan higher than Shaq/Russell/Wilt), but I don't think Robinson was clearly worse than any of them.

[penbeast0]

I have small nitpick to the bolded part though - I'd take Robinson over Hakeem as a passer quite comfortably. It depends on what's your top 20, but I'd take him over Dirk as well in that aspect.

Hm good question. Probably something like:

Magic/Nash/Bird
LeBron/Oscar/Stockton
Jordan/West/Curry
Kobe/Durant/Garnett
Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Wilt/Duncan
Hakeem/Dirk

excluding Robinson. So you think he should be in that next highest tier?

(This isn't a set in stone top 20, some others are pretty close.)

I will say that having Nash, Stockton, and Dirk in the top 20 while excluding Erving, Karl Malone, and Moses Malone is a bit of a hot take. I think all 3 ended up above those 3 the last few times we took a board survey. If it was a greatest offensive player in NBA history, sure, but with defense added, Nash and Dirk have a rougher time making an argument.

I'd say the big outlier/question mark for me isn't Wilt who I have comfortably top 10, probably top 5 (I'm higher on Russell than most and Wilt against everyone else is Jordan level dominance plus). It's Mikan who played in such an outlier era that it's tough to justify him while achieving such results that it's tough to leave him out.

[70sFan]

I have small nitpick to the bolded part though - I'd take Robinson over Hakeem as a passer quite comfortably. It depends on what's your top 20, but I'd take him over Dirk as well in that aspect.

Hm good question. Probably something like:

Magic/Nash/Bird
LeBron/Oscar/Stockton
Jordan/West/Curry
Kobe/Durant/Garnett
Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Wilt/Duncan
Hakeem/Dirk

excluding Robinson. So you think he should be in that next highest tier?

(This isn't a set in stone top 20, some others are pretty close.)

I will say that having Nash, Stockton, and Dirk in the top 20 while excluding Erving, Karl Malone, and Moses Malone is a bit of a hot take. I think all 3 ended up above those 3 the last few times we took a board survey. If it was a greatest offensive player in NBA history, sure, but with defense added, Nash and Dirk have a rougher time making an argument.

I'd say the big outlier/question mark for me isn't Wilt who I have comfortably top 10, probably top 5 (I'm higher on Russell than most and Wilt against everyone else is Jordan level dominance plus). It's Mikan who played in such an outlier era that it's tough to justify him while achieving such results that it's tough to leave him out.

If you want to include Mikan, then he's definitely ahead of Robinson as a passer. Malone and Erving were also better, Moses - not so much.

[Doctor MJ]

(4) I've debated Kobe vs Dirk a good deal, but I think I've always stuck with Kobe. I think the reality is that it took Dirk a good while to really develop an approach that scaled reliably through playoff competition. It maybe could have been otherwise, but as critical as I am of Kobe in a lot of ways, I do think he was a better playoff performer than he was a regular season performer, and that keeps him from sinking too far on my list.

With Dirk in particular, is it the playmaking that's an issue, or the fact that he didn't move to the post consistently until later in his career (I think 09 was the first big year from the Synergy data)? If it's the former, are you lower on Hakeem than I am, or does his combination of elite vertical+horizontal defense in addition to resilient scoring make him safer?

With Robinson, I do wonder if there has been a bit of an overadjustment from the first wave of all-in-one box score stats that hasn't yet diminished. He has terrific WOWY, RAPM, and +/- data (from the Pollack books), but it almost feels like year after year of 29+ PER and .250+ was too strong a prior (I think this has been the case with Paul as well, and to a lesser extent Wade). That said, Robinson is less resilient a scorer than Hakeem or Dirk, and is probably a clearly worse passer than anybody else in the top 20 (unless Moses is in there).

In the end how I tend to see Dirk is how I see a lot of guys:

The optimal way to play through an 82 game season is not the only way you have to be ready to play against every playoff opponent, and the more you deviate from established norms, the more potential there is that there's a counter you haven't encountered yet.

What does it look like when you figure it out? Can look a lot of places, but the throughline to me is sharp decision making - which certainly pertains to playmaking. Dirk moving to the post allowed him to really make use of that improved playmaking capacity, but I'm not prepared to say that that's the only way Dirk could have had that kind of success.

Re: Hakeem. Well on the playoff point, I don't see the same type of postseason bulletproofing concerns with him. In general he always seemed like a guy who impressed beyond any reasonable expectation.

In terms of getting better over time though, that's clearly a think with Hakeem, and it makes me have a wide range of slots I could put him in. I've said before that he's the lowest guy on my GOAT list that I could see an argument for as GOAT. I could also see him outside of my top 10. More than anything I have a major feeling of being impressed by Hakeem in a way that few others have impressed me.

Re: Robinson. With the Admiral, I generally have him lower than I could conceivably see him being, just because I respect the hell out of him, but he ends up losing 1 v 1 career comparisons for me with others on a similar tier. I have more affinity for Robinson than, say, Karl Malone, but Malone did it reliably for longer and had the edge when both were competing in-prime together.

[70sFan]

(4) I've debated Kobe vs Dirk a good deal, but I think I've always stuck with Kobe. I think the reality is that it took Dirk a good while to really develop an approach that scaled reliably through playoff competition. It maybe could have been otherwise, but as critical as I am of Kobe in a lot of ways, I do think he was a better playoff performer than he was a regular season performer, and that keeps him from sinking too far on my list.

With Dirk in particular, is it the playmaking that's an issue, or the fact that he didn't move to the post consistently until later in his career (I think 09 was the first big year from the Synergy data)? If it's the former, are you lower on Hakeem than I am, or does his combination of elite vertical+horizontal defense in addition to resilient scoring make him safer?

With Robinson, I do wonder if there has been a bit of an overadjustment from the first wave of all-in-one box score stats that hasn't yet diminished. He has terrific WOWY, RAPM, and +/- data (from the Pollack books), but it almost feels like year after year of 29+ PER and .250+ was too strong a prior (I think this has been the case with Paul as well, and to a lesser extent Wade). That said, Robinson is less resilient a scorer than Hakeem or Dirk, and is probably a clearly worse passer than anybody else in the top 20 (unless Moses is in there).

In the end how I tend to see Dirk is how I see a lot of guys:

The optimal way to play through an 82 game season is not the only way you have to be ready to play against every playoff opponent, and the more you deviate from established norms, the more potential there is that there's a counter you haven't encountered yet.

What does it look like when you figure it out? Can look a lot of places, but the throughline to me is sharp decision making - which certainly pertains to playmaking. Dirk moving to the post allowed him to really make use of that improved playmaking capacity, but I'm not prepared to say that that's the only way Dirk could have had that kind of success.

Re: Hakeem. Well on the playoff point, I don't see the same type of postseason bulletproofing concerns with him. In general he always seemed like a guy who impressed beyond any reasonable expectation.

In terms of getting better over time though, that's clearly a think with Hakeem, and it makes me have a wide range of slots I could put him in. I've said before that he's the lowest guy on my GOAT list that I could see an argument for as GOAT. I could also see him outside of my top 10. More than anything I have a major feeling of being impressed by Hakeem in a way that few others have impressed me.

Re: Robinson. With the Admiral, I generally have him lower than I could conceivably see him being, just because I respect the hell out of him, but he ends up losing 1 v 1 career comparisons for me with others on a similar tier. I have more affinity for Robinson than, say, Karl Malone, but Malone did it reliably for longer and had the edge when both were competing in-prime together.

I don't want to destroy this thread, but I'm always curious why you're so high on Hakeem compared to Wilt or Duncan. I think after all these years, I got pretty decent idea of what you value the most and I still struggle with Hakeem in this case. He's quite resiliant of course due to his shotmaking ability, but he's actually not a versatile offensive player despite his scoring skillset and he had more holes in his game than bigs I mentioned (at least in my opinion, but you can see it different).

Would you mind wasting some time on my question?

[Doctor MJ]

With Dirk in particular, is it the playmaking that's an issue, or the fact that he didn't move to the post consistently until later in his career (I think 09 was the first big year from the Synergy data)? If it's the former, are you lower on Hakeem than I am, or does his combination of elite vertical+horizontal defense in addition to resilient scoring make him safer?

With Robinson, I do wonder if there has been a bit of an overadjustment from the first wave of all-in-one box score stats that hasn't yet diminished. He has terrific WOWY, RAPM, and +/- data (from the Pollack books), but it almost feels like year after year of 29+ PER and .250+ was too strong a prior (I think this has been the case with Paul as well, and to a lesser extent Wade). That said, Robinson is less resilient a scorer than Hakeem or Dirk, and is probably a clearly worse passer than anybody else in the top 20 (unless Moses is in there).

In the end how I tend to see Dirk is how I see a lot of guys:

The optimal way to play through an 82 game season is not the only way you have to be ready to play against every playoff opponent, and the more you deviate from established norms, the more potential there is that there's a counter you haven't encountered yet.

What does it look like when you figure it out? Can look a lot of places, but the throughline to me is sharp decision making - which certainly pertains to playmaking. Dirk moving to the post allowed him to really make use of that improved playmaking capacity, but I'm not prepared to say that that's the only way Dirk could have had that kind of success.

Re: Hakeem. Well on the playoff point, I don't see the same type of postseason bulletproofing concerns with him. In general he always seemed like a guy who impressed beyond any reasonable expectation.

In terms of getting better over time though, that's clearly a think with Hakeem, and it makes me have a wide range of slots I could put him in. I've said before that he's the lowest guy on my GOAT list that I could see an argument for as GOAT. I could also see him outside of my top 10. More than anything I have a major feeling of being impressed by Hakeem in a way that few others have impressed me.

Re: Robinson. With the Admiral, I generally have him lower than I could conceivably see him being, just because I respect the hell out of him, but he ends up losing 1 v 1 career comparisons for me with others on a similar tier. I have more affinity for Robinson than, say, Karl Malone, but Malone did it reliably for longer and had the edge when both were competing in-prime together.

I don't want to destroy this thread, but I'm always curious why you're so high on Hakeem compared to Wilt or Duncan. I think after all these years, I got pretty decent idea of what you value the most and I still struggle with Hakeem in this case. He's quite resiliant of course due to his shotmaking ability, but he's actually not a versatile offensive player despite his scoring skillset and he had more holes in his game than bigs I mentioned (at least in my opinion, but you can see it different).

Would you mind wasting some time on my question?

Well like I say, Hakeem is tough. More uncertainty there than most players from his era or later.

In comparison to Wilt or Duncan?

Well, I saw Hakeem rip through the playoffs leading his team to back to back titles while playing as a volume scorer, which Wilt never did. It's possible that Wilt could have done the same, but from what we've actually seen, Wilt's volume scoring offenses hit a wall that Hakeem's broke through.

Duncan of course did win as a volume scorer...but the team got better at offense when they moved away from his volume scoring even before newblood like Kawhi arrived. In the end I see those early Spurs titles as being based on elite defense and good-enough offense, and I don't think it would have been good-enough if teams were playing with better strategy.

I think you can argue that in making a distinction here between Hakeem & Duncan I'm putting too much emphasis on Hakeem's absolute apex in an ideal scheme, and this gives arguments both for career Hakeem ranking below Duncan (which is how I have them on my career GOAT list) and for what Duncan might have been able to do as a volume scorer in a smarter scheme.

Defensively I just think Hakeem is much more the ideal build for a defender than Wilt or Duncan. I think you want someone quick, agile & long, and that's why Russell dominated in his day. It would be all the more true in today's game, so in general I'm more impressed defensively by guys like Russell/Hakeem/KG than I am the sturdier guys.

Make sense? More thoughts?

[Cavsfansince84]

He's a good gate keeper in terms of peak, prime, longevity and accolades/post season success. I mean you can definitely argue him for being in the top 10 but ya I think his career as a whole is a good measuring stick though its hard to expect anyone to match him in just rings.

[Bookerte]

Silly thread. Kobe is clearly in the top ten.

[RoyceDa59]

Larry Bird?