Where does Kobe rank All-Time with another Repeat?

[Shot Clock]

Right, rings are important to get you in the discussion but once you have a couple the argument about a good player that can't win it all goes out. Multiple rings are a product of a good team, ownership, coaching, luck, etc. It's not really a measure of a player. But I don't see a guy who isn't the clear cut best in his own time ever being considered GOAT.

The names at the top have a pretty solid basis for an argument. 3 MVP's would seem to be the entry fee.

Rings are important because in the end, that's what everyone is playing for. And really, the truly great players are ones that championship teams and dynasties were built around. Let's not dismiss winning, because basketball is a team sport and championships are the ultimate display of a great player using his talents to work with other (and in most cases, lesser) talents in a team concept.

I'm not dismissing winning. I said it's important to have won. But piling up wins isn't that impressive because lets be honest, no one wins on their own or Kobe would haven't had suffered a drought.

Is Kobe a lesser player if when his missed the layup to win Game 4 vs Sac Horry doesn't happen to have the ball fall in his lap for the win? They would have been down 3 games to 1 and I don't even think bad reffing would pull it out.

Is he a lesser player if Portland doesn't melt down in Game 7 and start tightening up?

What if he served out his career with the team that drafted him rather then going to one of the winning-est teams in history? I mean if you are about winning your best bet is to go to one of the 5 teams that have won 27 out of the last 30 titles. If you include Houston you have 29/30. Your odds are pathetic if you play anywhere else. Is it really reflective of the individual?

[kasino]

Besides the "what if's" he has been elite on a contender for 10 years. Getting 4 rings on his quest to 5. Regardless of the name on the front of his jersey Kobe has been the a major driving force for the Lakers this decade. He is currently on 3 consecutive trips to the Finals.

His career-
96-98 Off the bench(2years)---11.4/2.2/1.9(reg) and 8.4/1.5/1.3(playoffs)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997
NBA All-Rookie selection 2nd Team: 1997
All-Star: 1998

98-04 Starting with Shaq(6years)---25.0/5.9/5.5(reg) and 25.5/5.7/5.0(playoffs)
NBA Championship: 2000, 2001, 2002
All-Star: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
All-Star Game MVP:2002
All-NBA 1st Team: 2002, 2003, 2004
All-Defenives 1st Team: 2000, 2003, 2004

04-07 By himself(3years)---31.6/5.6/5.3(reg) and 30.3/5.7/4.7(playoffs)
Scoring Champ: 2006, 2007
All-Star: 2005, 2006, 2007
All-NBA 1st Team: 2006, 2007
All-Defensive 1st Team: 2006, 2007
When left to overperform for his team, he shows dominance but can't win like any other all-time great

With Gasol(3years)---27.3/5.6/5.1(reg) and 29.9/5.3/5.7(playoffs)
NBA Champion: 2009
NBA Finals MVP: 2009
MVP: 2008
All-Star: 2008, 2009, 2010
All-Star Game MVP: 2007, 2009
All-NBA 1st Team: 2008, 2009, 2010
All-Defensive 1st Team: 2008, 2009, 2010

If he wins this ring he leaves Shaq/Duncan and settles with Bird/Magic.

[KNICKS1970]

I'm not dismissing winning. I said it's important to have won. But piling up wins isn't that impressive because lets be honest, no one wins on their own or Kobe would haven't had suffered a drought.

Is Kobe a lesser player if when his missed the layup to win Game 4 vs Sac Horry doesn't happen to have the ball fall in his lap for the win? They would have been down 3 games to 1 and I don't even think bad reffing would pull it out.

Is he a lesser player if Portland doesn't melt down in Game 7 and start tightening up?

Losing doesn't hurt a player's legacy UNLESS they don't win. Even Russell lost in the postseason. But winning undeniably enhances a player's legacy, and I don't think there's any realistic way to argue against that. Basketball is a team game, but it's also unique in that a single player can have an enormous effect on a franchise. With few exceptions, championship teams and dynasties have been built around the greatest players to play the game.

[Dat Pass]

Besides the "what if's" he has been elite on a contender for 10 years. Getting 4 rings on his quest to 5. Regardless of the name on the front of his jersey Kobe has been the a major driving force for the Lakers this decade. He is currently on 3 consecutive trips to the Finals.

His career-
96-98 Off the bench(2years)---11.4/2.2/1.9(reg) and 8.4/1.5/1.3(playoffs)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997
NBA All-Rookie selection 2nd Team: 1997
All-Star: 1998

98-04 Starting with Shaq(6years)---25.0/5.9/5.5(reg) and 25.5/5.7/5.0(playoffs)
NBA Championship: 2000, 2001, 2002
All-Star: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
All-Star Game MVP:2002
All-NBA 1st Team: 2002, 2003, 2004
All-Defenives 1st Team: 2000, 2003, 2004

04-07 By himself(3years)---31.6/5.6/5.3(reg) and 30.3/5.7/4.7(playoffs)
Scoring Champ: 2006, 2007
All-Star: 2005, 2006, 2007
All-NBA 1st Team: 2006, 2007
All-Defensive 1st Team: 2006, 2007
When left to overperform for his team, he shows dominance but can't win like any other all-time great

With Gasol(3years)---27.3/5.6/5.1(reg) and 29.9/5.3/5.7(playoffs)
NBA Champion: 2009
NBA Finals MVP: 2009
MVP: 2008
All-Star: 2008, 2009, 2010
All-Star Game MVP: 2007, 2009
All-NBA 1st Team: 2008, 2009, 2010
All-Defensive 1st Team: 2008, 2009, 2010

If he wins this ring he leaves Shaq/Duncan and settles with Bird/Magic.

Great post.

[FinalsMVP]

In the proper context, after all the hype and excitement dies down somewhat, I think people will be hard pressed to say a guy with only 1 MVP is one of the Top 5 players ever, especially considering the guys currently in the discussion are Russell (5 MVPs), Chamberlain (4 MVPs), Kareem (6 MVPs), Magic (3 MVPs), Bird (3 MVPs) and Jordan (5 MVPs). MVPs are a measurement of a player standing out over his peers, and that is a factor as well. It's not the end all be all, just like rings or stats aren't the entire argument. I've always thought in these all-time discussions, everything should be looked at.

Right, rings are important to get you in the discussion but once you have a couple the argument about a good player that can't win it all goes out. Multiple rings are a product of a good team, ownership, coaching, luck, etc. It's not really a measure of a player. But I don't see a guy who isn't the clear cut best in his own time ever being considered GOAT.

The names at the top have a pretty solid basis for an argument. 3 MVP's would seem to be the entry fee.

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

[Gongxi]

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

Unfortunately, you're right. There are many people looking at past years in just such a manner as we speak, right here. It doesn't really support your stance, though.

[KNICKS1970]

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

So what? "Best Player in the game" is an arbitrary title that is more of a discussion/argument piece than an actual title someone holds. In the last 30 years, the only time there was a clear-cut consensus about who the best player in the game was Jordan in the 90s and Shaq in the early part of the 00s.

MVP voting isn't perfect, but it is a snapshot into how a player was regarded in comparison to his peers and should be considered.

[FinalsMVP]

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

So what? "Best Player in the game" is an arbitrary title that is more of a discussion/argument piece than an actual title someone holds. In the last 30 years, the only time there was a clear-cut consensus about who the best player in the game was Jordan in the 90s and Shaq in the early part of the 00s.

MVP voting isn't perfect, but it is a snapshot into how a player was regarded in comparison to his peers and should be considered.

In the last ten years, Nash has 20% of the MVPs, Dirk has 10%, Iverson has 10% and KG has 10%.

half of the MVPs have gone to players who wouldn't even make the ALL NBA 1st team for the decade.

G - Kobe
G - Kidd
F - Duncan
F - Lebron
C - Shaquille

So, if it is a snapshot, then it is a poor snapshot.

I also think you're wrong. For years we heard Kobe and Shaq couldn't even be considered for MVP because they played together. In 05' Barkley came up with "making your teammates" better as the criteria (despite Nash playing with probably the best supporting cast of the decade).

The media has no consistency in voting and so the award is arbitrary in my view.

Is Nash better than Kobe or Shaquille?

Comon' now.

[KNICKS1970]

You have to look at everything and put it in the proper context. Why did Shaq lose out on those MVPs? Because there was a feeling, a justified one, that he didn't take the regular season seriously and was playing on autopilot before the playoffs.

Kobe lost out on some MVPs because he was, justifiably, looked at as a sidekick rather than the best player on his team. In the middle part of the decade, his team was mediocre.

I use the term snapshot because the MVP is a look into who mattered at any given point in different seasons. It's not the entire picture, and its not the end-all-be-all to any discussion, but it is a starting point to a larger discussion (namely, who's the best player ever). If a player wins or doesn't win, then the question needs to be asked "Why?" and then you form opinions from there. A reason why the definition of the award is so ambiguous is to encourage debates like this one.

My problem with a lot of Top 10 or GOAT discussion on this board is that people are so easy to dismiss stats or information they don't like and cherrypick stats or awards or whatever to try to and their own predetermined opinions. I think it's important to look at everything and examine everything and form opinions from there.

[Shot Clock]

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

Seriously, what are the chances that the voters missed the GOAT while MVP voting this decade? Right under their noses and the miss him...

[kasino]

Except MVPs aren't Best Player in the Game awards.

Sorry.

Seriously, what are the chances that the voters missed the GOAT while MVP voting this decade? Right under their noses and the miss him...

it really is a travesty.
but his fault he feel out of grace with everyone with breaking up with Shaq/Phil and the rape trail.
all things happen for a reason and if he didn't go through what he did might have still been in Shaq's shadow or even still dumb enough to cheat on his wife.

[Optms]

Owning the Celtics on his way to a 5th ring gives him a few more brownie points in my book. ;D

[Original Baller]

In the proper context, after all the hype and excitement dies down somewhat, I think people will be hard pressed to say a guy with only 1 MVP is one of the Top 5 players ever, especially considering the guys currently in the discussion are Russell (5 MVPs), Chamberlain (4 MVPs), Kareem (6 MVPs), Magic (3 MVPs), Bird (3 MVPs) and Jordan (5 MVPs). MVPs are a measurement of a player standing out over his peers, and that is a factor as well. It's not the end all be all, just like rings or stats aren't the entire argument. I've always thought in these all-time discussions, everything should be looked at.

thats an indictment of the MVP award and the voters rather than Kobe

the fact that a guy like Steve Nash has more MVP's than Shaq and Kobe should tell you all you need to know.

Kobe's pairing with Shaq was both a gift and a curse. A gift in the sense that he won 3 titles at a young age with another top 10 all time player. The curse was that his individual numbers and accolades suffered because both guys had to share the spotlight as well as the shots. If Kobe never played with Shaq I'm guessing he would DEFINATELY have more than one MVP right now. Whether he would be going for ring #5 is debatable but I wouldn't say its impossible.

[FinalsMVP]

Good post Original

The argument that MVPs determine what an all time great player is seems ridiculous. LeBron has two MVPs and he's won as many finals games as I have. Nash has never been to a finals. Dirk doesn't have a ring.

The argument that one must win X number of MVPs in order to enter the GOAT conversation is absolutely ludicrious.

This is not to say disregard Magic or Bird's MVPs, but I prefer to look at people's careers holistically. There's no check box except for multiple rings.

[KobeFarmarEra]

Regular season MVP is a media award. Invoking that criteria has no business when discussing Kobe's legacy after Colorado. Kobe was and remains the NBA's greatest heel. You can even tell by this very thread how much insecurity exists when Kobe is winning. The very same feeling is shared by the Jordan worshipers that run rampant within sports media. Which is ironic because if you ask his Airness himself, he'll tell you who the best in the game is. And it's not number 6.

Great players are made and judged by how they win. That's how things work. You can keep denying the obvious but I wouldn't bet against a guy that was forced to wear the "next Jordan" label at age 19 and then actually live up to it.

[kasino]

With another ring this year he leaves the ranking with Shaq/Duncan to join Magic/Bird.

[Gongxi]

Good post Original

The argument that MVPs determine what an all time great player is seems ridiculous. LeBron has two MVPs and he's won as many finals games as I have. Nash has never been to a finals. Dirk doesn't have a ring.

The argument that one must win X number of MVPs in order to enter the GOAT conversation is absolutely ludicrious.

This is not to say disregard Magic or Bird's MVPs, but I prefer to look at people's careers holistically. There's no check box except for multiple rings.

LOL

No, there's no check box period. You can't just randomly throw out MVPs because you don't like them and then just as randomly throw team accomplishments in there. Why is it that Kobe Kidz are so adamant about team accomplishments anyway? Can you explain that?

[kasino]

Gongxi, whats your arguement against him being ahead of Shaq/Duncan with another ring?

[Gongxi]

His prime wasn't better, his sustained excellence hasn't been more consistent. Lots of ways to going about proving it, but that's the summation of it.

[kasino]

hasn't been consistent?
are you serious. he is the definition of consistency.
please another arguement because prime means little to me since Kobe is 29/5/5 since breaking up with Shaq. With Shaq he was a 25/5/5 player.