Dutchball97 wrote:Stalwart wrote:Dutchball97 wrote:
You've got to look at the comment I replied to. I'm not looking to get into another who was the best in 06 discussion, we've all said our piece. Stalwart said it is impossible for LeBron to be ranked ahead of Kobe in 2010 because he hadn't won a title yet and Nash and Dirk couldn't be ranked above Kobe either in 06 because they hadn't won titles yet. That's just the most basic and useless way of looking at basketball imo and completely faulty logic especially considering Kobe wasn't even the best player on his team for any of those 3 early rings.
That's a tad bit disingenuous. I said quite a bit more than that ALL of which you ignored. You've never responded to the basis behind that perspective. You never addressed the principle of not assuming players can do things they haven't done yet. You never addressed the concept of intangibles as illustrated by Lebron's lack thereof in 2011. Lebron proved my point and you won't address it.
I agree to a certain degree with the principle that we shouldn't just assume certain players would be able to do certain things they haven't shown in real time. I personally have Kobe ahead of KG as well. My problem is the certainty you use when talking about these concepts. There is no nuance in the way you look at things. While we can't just say someone like KG would have 10 rings with a decent supporting cast we still need to look at the context of things. You just kind of seem to assume since Kobe has had more team success than KG that means he was definitely better and the only reason it is that way is because Kobe was a great leader, had a high IQ etc but by that logic the reason for the Lakers being trash from 2005 till 2007 would also be Kobe suddenly being a bad leader and having low IQ. The consistency doesn't seem to be there.
It's not about Kobe being "better" than KG. It's about him having proven himself to a significantly greater degree when it comes to team accomplishments and being a leader. When you compare Kobe and KG skill for skill, stat for stat, accolade for accolade, peak for peak, and their longevity you are not going to find much of a difference. Same thing if you compare KG to Tim Duncan. They are all incredibly comparable. The only significant area of difference between a KG and a Kobe or a Tim Duncan is the team success. It's true that KG didn't really get a chance to prove himself as a bus driver or even a co-pilot so he was unlucky in that sense. But the principle still remains: we can't assume KG would have been a successful bus driver if given better opportunities and then rank him ahead of comparable players who actually did do it.
I'm not here arguing that Kobe Bryant was on this whole other caliber of player than KG. In fact they were so comparable that it's kind of a futile endeavor to sit here and try to parse out their skill set and impact. So yeah, KG was
awesome. But Kobe was a proven winner and champion multiple times over. That's the difference between them.
I don't think your LeBron point proved anything tbh. You claim that because LeBron crumbled under pressure in the 2011 finals that Kobe was the better player than LeBron in 2010. Once again it isn't even that I disagree too much with the idea Kobe might have been better than LeBron in 2010, it's at least arguable. It's your methods that aren't legit. If your starting point is Kobe was better and you then look for anything backing that up you'll always end up with a lopsided argument. I just don't think the 2011 finals say anything substantial about 2010. Because while you're pointing at intangibles, I already explained those factors show up in the stats. It isn't like LeBron was a statistical monster in the 2011 finals, it shows that he crumbled under pressure and didn't produce at the same level as other years like for example in 2010. You can't look at these years and assume everything was exactly the same. In 2010 LeBron was still on the Cavs with no help at all, while the next year he was supposed to win it all on his handpicked superteam and that was too much at the time. By your same logic you also can't say Kobe wouldn't have crumbled in a similar situation. In 2008 Kobe was no doubt a superstar but he still hadn't been able to win a ring without Shaq and then he finally got the chance to change that when he got a strong team around him. So what happened? Kobe shot 41% in the finals and they lost. It wasn't the same level of collapse but you think Kobe faced no additional pressure there? You're so bought into the idea that Kobe was so much stronger mentally than anyone else that it becomes your go to explanation for anything the Lakers achieved during his career.
Kobe and Lebron, like Kobe and KG, were comparable in 2009 and 2010. You could make the case that Lebron was a better player on a nightly basis from a statistical perspective but the difference would be marginal. Like you said, it's arguable. The only significant area of difference between Kobe and Lebron in 09 and 10 was that Kobe had proven himself as a leader, a bus driver, and someone who could handle all the pressures, challenges, and potential scrutiny of being in that role without getting overwhelmed. Notice Im not arguing that Tim Duncan was better than Lebron was in 09 even though Duncan was a proven leader and champion. Why? Because at that time Tim and Lebron were not comparable as players. Lebron was on a different level than Tim was by 2009 and 2010.
Regarding Kobe in 2008. It is true that Kobe was still trying to prove himself as a 'Bus Driver' at that time. He had yet to accomplish that goal. However, Kobe did prove himself as a Co-Pilot is at least 2 championships already. As a Co-Pilot he was a Co-Leader. That means he had proven himself as a leader to a certain degree prior to 2008. I also wouldn't characterize Kobe's performance in the 08 finals as him crumbling or collapsing. It's true that he lost and didn't play his best but there is no indication that he shrunk under the pressure. Notice I'm not characterizing Lebron's performance in the 2007 finals as a meltdown or him crumbling as we have no indication of that. Lebron clearly shrunk under the pressure in 2011 thus proving he didn't yet have the intangibles necessary to lead a team from start to finish. If Lebron didn't have this ability in 2011 what makes you think he had that ability in 2010?
Even with all that considered the main reason I didn't reply was your outlook on the first 3-peat Kobe vs Pippen point. Your viewpoints are always right and everyone else has warped their ideas with the sole purpose of disparaging Kobe. It's just not arguing in good faith. I consider myself a Kobe fan and have defended him in plenty of discussions on this board but just because I don't let personal feelings impact my evaluation of players I'm suddenly a hater?
I didn't say that you compared Kobe to Scottie Pippen in an attempt to disparage him. Seriously, I didn't say that and I don't believe that. You assume that's where I'm coming from and then read into the things I say. I'll repeat it again...I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE AN AGENDA AGAINST KOBE. What I did do though was speculate on how an otherwise knowledgeable fan like yourself could wind up comparing a guy putting up 28/6/7 on a championship team to Scottie Pippen as that doesn't make any logical sense. The conclusion I came up with was that this was a byproduct of all the years people have spent arguing that Shaq was better than Kobe during their 3peat. It's led to an impression of Kobe being a sidekick ala Scottie Pippen rather than an Co-Pilot he actually was.
If I'm wrong about that then ok. But I'd then be curious to know how you justify comparing Kobe Bryant to Scottie Pippen if not due to some subconscious impression you picked up over the years.
Kobe was definitely more skilled in the post than Shaq and even Duncan. They are 7-footers and Shaq was a beast... just no comparison to be made in the post as players because there's more to it than just post-skills.
