Lowest arguable ranking for Kobe?

[Masigond]

A bro, im not mad and i actually think big men have a much larger effect on the game but lil guys get the nod with style points. Its just that people wont admit that its style points that they like, lol

Just for understanding me better: I first came in contact with NBA basketball, i.e. the US players, at the 1992 Olympics when I was already 18. Didn't actually see many games back then, but it got me interested. Still I had to wait for the late 90s until I was able to watch NBA games here in Germany. Was never that overwhelmed by Kobe like younger guys or Lakers fans. And I always appreciated basketball more as team sports (that's also my take in Soccer, Ice Hockey and so on) and Kobe was never that icon for me because too often I could see that he wasn't the best team player that he could arguably have been. Not the best instincts for team play.

Style points... I liked pre-injury Grant Hill arguably the most. Just so smooth. Would really have loved to see prime Hill with teammates good enough to give him a chance to achieve something. Didn't happen, unfortunately.

[Ballerhogger]

i don't think you can rank him outside top 20, unless you don't care about longevity at all.

He has some amazing peak years as well

[Edrees]

I can respect any list with him 16-18 or only with strong arguement. Can't see him ranked lower than that.


BTW thought i'd throw this this out there, but Bridges is carrying Chris Paul this year.

[Marrrcuss]

A bro, im not mad and i actually think big men have a much larger effect on the game but lil guys get the nod with style points. Its just that people wont admit that its style points that they like, lol

Just for understanding me better: I first came in contact with NBA basketball, i.e. the US players, at the 1992 Olympics when I was already 18. Didn't actually see many games back then, but it got me interested. Still I had to wait for the late 90s until I was able to watch NBA games here in Germany. Was never that overwhelmed by Kobe like younger guys or Lakers fans. And I always appreciated basketball more as team sports (that's also my take in Soccer, Ice Hockey and so on) and Kobe was never that icon for me because too often I could see that he wasn't the best team player that he could arguably have been. Not the best instincts for team play.

Style points... I liked pre-injury Grant Hill arguably the most. Just so smooth. Would really have loved to see prime Hill with teammates good enough to give him a chance to achieve something. Didn't happen, unfortunately.

Grant was incredible, He is the closest thing to LeBron style wise. So underrated. Duke loses by 30 one year to UNLV then beats them with the refs help once they add Grant, lol. The team Grant took to the finals in 1994 shouldnt have been there but he was that good.

I'll have to disagree on Kobe...well, mostly. He did get on my damn nerves from like 2006-2008 and i quietly wanted a trade for Bron or vince or tmac or anyone. He played that MJ ball hog hero ball, but on a less efficient level.

[Stalwart]

And Bill Russell has more rings due to the strength of his old Celtics team but he what else does he have? Apart from being able to play defense at a high level due to his athleticism and size, did he take the game of basketball forward in any other way due to talent or skills that he exhibited? Wilt was his contemporary, and if Wilt was on the same team as him, then Russell would have been sent to the Celtics bench due to redundancy. Could any of Kobe's contemporaries send him to the bench? The only player at his position that could have sent him to the bench is the GOAT, MJ, who was done by the time Kobe got going.

Have to disagree with you here. Russell did win 5 MVP awards, only Kareem has more. If were judging him relative to his era he can argue that he is the best rebounder of all time, one of the best defenders ever, and one of the best playmaking big men, as well has having the best leadership. In fact the only part of Russell's game that wasn't historically elite was his scoring.

He also won 2 NCAA titles and an Olympic gold medal along with 11 NBA titles. He even won as a Player/Coach. That gives him like a 90% championship win rate. No matter what team, what league, what level, or even what role he's serving on the team...he wins the whole thing almost every single time.

He still to this day has arguably the strongest resume out of anyone. I think Kobe was better than Tim Duncan as well but Russell's spot is very secure. Or at least should be.

[Myth]

The "best PF in history" thing is also a silly cliche that some commentator said a long time back, and is repeated by blind-witness hipsters today. Tim Duncan was a Center, who only played at PF while the Spurs still had Robinson because that was the efficient decision for their team. If Duncan was a PF, then so was Hakeem... and I'd take Hakeem over Duncan any time.

Just touching on this briefly, but Duncan played PF for several more years after D-Rob retired. He transitioned more to center full time starting 2006-07, which I believe was an adjustment Pop made due to changing of the way the game was played (A season after the 2005-06 Suns became prominent). But 2005-06 was the 3rd year after Robinson retired and the Spurs were playing Rasho and Nazr for 80 games each for a combined 36mpg, leaving only 12mpg remaining to be split among Duncan and Oberto at the C position. So Duncan was playing a bulk of his minutes at PF for 9 years (Only 6 next to Robinson) and was already considered by many the greatest PF of all time already (having already collected 3 championships). Him transitioning to be more of a C when the game changed doesn't take that title away. As for Hakeem, he played some PF early in his career, but clearly most of his career he played at C. If somebody wants to make a case that Hakeem was better at PF in that limited time, or could have been better at PF had he stayed there more, I actually don't object to that argument. Despite the respect Hakeem generally gets, he has also become one of the most underrated players of all time IMO (I mostly blame him having a trash team most of his peak and being overshadowed by MJ as for why).

[Cavsfansince84]

I can respect any list with him 16-18 or only with strong arguement. Can't see him ranked lower than that.


BTW thought i'd throw this this out there, but Bridges is carrying Chris Paul this year.

I agree. Anywhere from about 10-18 I can respect. Any higher and I think you're just a big Laker or Kobe homer or don't know much about pre 2000 players and any lower means you are probably hating to some degree.

[dhsilv2]

There are 7 players whom I would absolutely take over Kobe. In alphabetical order:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Lebron James
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell

Anybody who thinks Kobe ranks over one of those guys is imho wrong.

I have a huge problem with this statement because I do not think Duncan and Russell were better than Kobe. If you want to say that you feel those two were better, then you have a right to your opinion... however, you cannot dismiss others who feel otherwise, and there are more people who think that Kobe was better than those two.

Remember... this is the same Tim Duncan who never won a back-to-back ring despite having the best FO, best coach, and deepest squad in the league for the majority of his prime. The same Tim Duncan who lost a finals MVP to a Tony Parker, not even to a Shaq or a Durant. The same Tim Duncan who was captain of the first USA Men's basketball team to not win the Olympic gold in 40 years! The "best PF in history" thing is also a silly cliche that some commentator said a long time back, and is repeated by blind-witness hipsters today. Tim Duncan was a Center, who only played at PF while the Spurs still had Robinson because that was the efficient decision for their team. If Duncan was a PF, then so was Hakeem... and I'd take Hakeem over Duncan any time. Hakeem had better skills on offense... skills that took the game of basketball forward from where the NBA was when he joined. Hakeem was also better on defense.

And Bill Russell has more rings due to the strength of his old Celtics team but he what else does he have? Apart from being able to play defense at a high level due to his athleticism and size, did he take the game of basketball forward in any other way due to talent or skills that he exhibited? Wilt was his contemporary, and if Wilt was on the same team as him, then Russell would have been sent to the Celtics bench due to redundancy. Could any of Kobe's contemporaries send him to the bench? The only player at his position that could have sent him to the bench is the GOAT, MJ, who was done by the time Kobe got going.

Bill Russell....the guy who was taught that JUMPING to block a shot shouldn't be done....what did HE do the change the game? Wow....

Also if wilt and russel were on a team together, they'd start. Both of them...you think a 60's coach is going to be like "oh we got too many talls guys?" LOL

[ThumbsUpBaby]

I'd rank Kobe at 15 at his lowest. But he's at #12 for me.

[Bornstellar]

I'm of the opinion that Kobe is one of the more overrated players of all-time and unjustly is put into the upper echelon of players when in reality he is on the tier below them. Not to say he wasn't an all-timer, because he certainly was, but I personally don't think he belongs in the discussion with Jordan, LBJ, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan, etc.

That being said I don't see any argument to have him lower than top 15 all-time. I personally have him somewhere in the 10-12 range

MJ
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Russell*
Wilt*
Shaq
Hakeem


Then you can argue a number of players after that. I think I'd probably put him at 11

[kasrok]

There are 7 players whom I would absolutely take over Kobe. In alphabetical order:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Lebron James
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell

Anybody who thinks Kobe ranks over one of those guys is imho wrong.

I have a huge problem with this statement because I do not think Duncan and Russell were better than Kobe. If you want to say that you feel those two were better, then you have a right to your opinion... however, you cannot dismiss others who feel otherwise, and there are more people who think that Kobe was better than those two.

Remember... this is the same Tim Duncan who never won a back-to-back ring despite having the best FO, best coach, and deepest squad in the league for the majority of his prime. The same Tim Duncan who lost a finals MVP to a Tony Parker, not even to a Shaq or a Durant. The same Tim Duncan who was captain of the first USA Men's basketball team to not win the Olympic gold in 40 years! The "best PF in history" thing is also a silly cliche that some commentator said a long time back, and is repeated by blind-witness hipsters today. Tim Duncan was a Center, who only played at PF while the Spurs still had Robinson because that was the efficient decision for their team. If Duncan was a PF, then so was Hakeem... and I'd take Hakeem over Duncan any time. Hakeem had better skills on offense... skills that took the game of basketball forward from where the NBA was when he joined. Hakeem was also better on defense.

And Bill Russell has more rings due to the strength of his old Celtics team but he what else does he have? Apart from being able to play defense at a high level due to his athleticism and size, did he take the game of basketball forward in any other way due to talent or skills that he exhibited? Wilt was his contemporary, and if Wilt was on the same team as him, then Russell would have been sent to the Celtics bench due to redundancy. Could any of Kobe's contemporaries send him to the bench? The only player at his position that could have sent him to the bench is the GOAT, MJ, who was done by the time Kobe got going.

I would def take Duncan over a Kobe Bryant who derailed and broke up one of the great NBA combos ever / Got his coach fired / when faced with accusation of rape, ratted on his teammate for paying off women to have affairs / demanded trades because he was first round fodder. If you're making hypothetical teams and are considering Kobe, you have to consider all the baggage he brought to the table. I still have him #12 but Duncan is unquestionably in my top 10

[-Sammy-]

Anything lower than about 13th is too low. I think 8-13 is his reasonable range, and I have him either 11th or 12th, depending on how I feel about a few other guys on a given day.

[-Sammy-]

There are 7 players whom I would absolutely take over Kobe. In alphabetical order:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Lebron James
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell

Anybody who thinks Kobe ranks over one of those guys is imho wrong.

If you want to say that you feel those two were better, then you have a right to your opinion... however, you cannot dismiss others who feel otherwise...

He didn't dismiss anyone. He did exactly what you said he should do-- he stated his opinion and he acknowledged that it's his opinion.

Remember... this is the same Tim Duncan who never won a back-to-back ring...

That has no bearing on the value of Duncan's rings. Championships are standalone achievements; otherwise, we could always dismiss a title by saying 'it doesn't really count unless they win again next year.' 5 = 5.

The same Tim Duncan who lost a finals MVP to a Tony Parker, not even to a Shaq or a Durant. The same Tim Duncan who was captain of the first USA Men's basketball team to not win the Olympic gold in 40 years! The "best PF in history" thing is also a silly cliche that some commentator said a long time back, and is repeated by blind-witness hipsters today.

None of this has anything to do with the topic at-hand. A FMVP is up for debate just like most other individual accolades are, and even if you think it's a knock against Duncan that Parker won one, Duncan still has more of them than Kobe (and more RS MVPs, too).

Basketball is a team sport; the fact that Team USA didn't win when Duncan was there is no more an indictment against him personally than the Lakers' lean years after Shaq left is an indictment against Kobe personally.

The PF-or-C issue is irrelevant to this topic altogether.

And Bill Russell has more rings due to the strength of his old Celtics team...

You can dismiss any player's oeuvre this way. 'Russell only won 11 rings because of such-and-such; Duncan only won his rings because of this-and-that'; but if you're going to go that route, you can't get mad if people point out that Kobe played his first eight years under the GOAT coach and a prime Shaq and won most of his rings thusly. That knife cuts both ways.

That's why it's a better approach to just acknowledge all accomplishments instead of selectively trying to qualify some.

...but he what else does (Russell) have? Apart from being able to play defense at a high level...

You mean half the game?

...did he take the game of basketball forward in any other way due to talent or skills that he exhibited?

Did Kobe? Kobe is undeniably the greatest of the 'Jordan clones' and the second-greatest SG ever, but literally everything about his game was patterned after Jordan's; that doesn't diminish his legacy in the slightest, and neither should Russell's supposed unoriginality or lack of novelty or whatever it is you're arguing here.

[Dr Aki]

6-10, same tier as (and therefore arguably better than) Bird, Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan, depending on how much you take into consideration prime/longevity, defense, playoff resilience, playoff success and head-to-head (only for arguments vs Duncan, and up until the Achilles injury in 2013, this was definately arguable) over prime, efficiency (which isn't really fair because the above were big men) and individual accolades.

[Stalwart]

If we drafting with perfect hindsight is Kobe still on the board after 11 picks?

MJ, Kareem, LBJ, Wilt, Duncan, the MagicBird (they so connected that people have to post their names next to each other), Shaq,

Then we talking Hakeem, Russell, Curry and Kobe right before you get to the KDs and Giannis (assume dude gonna get more hardware)


If no one respects the triple dub anymore than the Big O not coming if westbrook not gonna be there.


I legit don’t know If the big O was just that time periods this years Westbrook - It’s the problem with stats for players you never saw.

If it’s just stats Wilt is the Goat with a good ole 50pt & 25 reb. Do that now and we not even talking about jordan ever again

If we expect these guys to all play against each other than the 60s guys are out. The centers will drop due to the modern playstyle. That leaves MJ, Lebron, Magic, Bird. Perhaps you take Curry before Kobe. After that there is no one else.

I take Curry, Hakeem, KD, and Giannis over Kobe. Not for accomplishments but for ability. Had he been drafted by some other team other than the Lakers, I don’t see him doing more than these players did on some crap teams without the same recruiting power.

I think you're selling Kobe a bit short. His 09&10 title teams were good but not all time great rosters or anything. They weren't more talented than the Bucks team, Hakeems 95 team, or any of Curry's teams. And Durant has played with more talent than anyone ever and he still hasn't led his own team to a title yet. So as of right now, other than Hakeem in 94, none of these guys have done more with crap teams. They've all had good to great teams and have done less.

That's not to say in a fantasy draft scenario they wouldn't or couldn't do more but in real life they haven't, not yet at least. But that goes to show the inherent bias against Kobe. People just treat him like he didnt really do what he really did lol. One of the best winners in NBA history but you don't think you can win with him. Ok.

[dautjazz]

When he retired I had him around 14-15, but since I'd say Durant and Curry easily passed him. Giannis is on the verge of passing him if he hasn't already. I'd say he is top 20, top 15 I believe is a bit of a reach already.

[Marty McFly]

no lower than 20.

[Cavsfansince84]

When he retired I had him around 14-15, but since I'd say Durant and Curry easily passed him. Giannis is on the verge of passing him if he hasn't already. I'd say he is top 20, top 15 I believe is a bit of a reach already.

This is also becoming a factor. I don't have Steph, KD or Giannis ahead of him yet but the first two are getting awfully close and Giannis will probably be close in about 5-6 years if he keeps it up plus who knows with guys like Jokic if he starts winning rings.

[BostonCouchGM]

I think 15 is the lowest you can go and not sound like a troll

MJ
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Lebron
Oscar
Hakeem
West

imho the above are 100% undeniably better. Steph, Giannis and KD all have a chance to surpass him. Then you've got viable arguments for Shaq. After that, while guys are certainly in the viscinity they can't be argued to be better in good faith.

[Frank Dux]

I think 15 is the lowest you can go and not sound like a troll

MJ
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Lebron
Oscar
Hakeem
West

imho the above are 100% undeniably better. Steph, Giannis and KD all have a chance to surpass him. Then you've got viable arguments for Shaq. After that, while guys are certainly in the viscinity they can't be argued to be better in good faith.

I have a hard time believing West and Robertson are undeniably better.