Kobe: 30,000 Points

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

Ok. What did Kobe do to YOU that made you dislike him so much that you begrudgingly will put him in the stratosphere of Russell, Kareem, Magic, Jordan, Bird, Wilt, Robertson, Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, West and Barkley?

he too said 'low hole only'

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Jace

Wilt
Kareem
Jordan
Magic
Bird

Five off the top of my head I can't put him ahead of.

me too and Bird is the only one he can come close to and that's only because of Bird's back problems - a couple more healthy seasons and it's non-negotiable

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Luke

I wouldn't say that Kobe has had a better career than Russell but I do think that Bird is a tossup.

I have trouble with Russell because of the competition; but then again, you can't fault him for that. Looking at his stats, his FG% could've been a little higher for a big man regularly playing against inferior competition. Can't argue against 11 championships, but again: competition. I generally leave him out of my top 5's because I don't know enough to be sure that he truly belongs there as a player, as much respect as I have for what he did.

As far as Bird vs. Kobe, I just don't see how the case could be made for Kobe over Bird. Kobe does have the edge in rings, and I won't fault him for Shaq being the MVP for the first 3 due to Bird having great teammates as well, but when looking at the stats I lean strongly to Bird. I'm not sure it's fair to give Kobe the edge for having played more seasons, with Bird starting his NBA career way later. The back stuff sucks, but ending your career at 35 is nothing to be ashamed of. Who knows how much Kobe would actually have had left in him if it weren't for modern German engineering.

Kobe is aesthetically as skilled/talented/fundamentally-impressive a scorer as the league has ever seen, but I think efficiency and team concept are extremely important when ordering the top of the all-time list. He sort of took the "fun" parts of Jordan's game and ran with them. People want to debate Jordan vs. Kobe, but to me what made Michael so impressive was that he was able to score at such a ridiculous clip, as a perimeter player, while shooting over 50%. In terms of assists, the difference in assist percentage is pretty negligible, though I'd argue MJ played with the better playmaker in Pippen than what Kobe had with Odom/Fisher.

[e-monk]

Russell had more competition than Shaq had at his individual position

[mysterio]

Originally Posted by e-monk

Russell had more competition than Shaq had at his individual position

Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Mutombo, Mourning, Willis, Divac weren't enough?

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by mysterio

Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Mutombo, Mourning, Willis, Divac weren't enough?

not in a 30 team league also populated by the likes of greg ostertag, eric montross and olden polynice (and I see you there trying to squeeze kevin willis into the conversation, sly devil, but no)

when russell was playing in a 8 team league facing Wilt and Bellamy and Thurmond and Reed - that's a hall of famer almost every night

now in the first half of russell's career it's different but by the early to mid 60s he was dealing with a tough match-up almost nightly with very few cherokee parks or luc longley or ervin johnson or Dean Garret or Bryant Reeves or Lorenzen Wright or benoit benjamin or.... in other words, nights off in between

think of it this way Shaq was in orlando he had hakeem twice the whole season, ditto robinson, ditto er- Vlade? Russell had Wilt 10 times a season, ditto bellamy - that's 20 tough games right out the gate and even allowing vlade and willis on your list all you've named is 20 tough games

[Dee-Zy]

Originally Posted by e-monk

not in a 30 team league also populated by the likes of greg ostertag, eric montross and olden polynice (and I see you there trying to squeeze kevin willis into the conversation, sly devil, but no)

when russell was playing in a 8 team league facing Wilt and Bellamy and Thurmond and Reed - that's a hall of famer almost every night

now in the first half of russell's career it's different but by the early to mid 60s he was dealing with a tough match-up almost nightly with very few cherokee parks or luc longley or ervin johnson or Dean Garret or Bryant Reeves or Lorenzen Wright or benoit benjamin or.... in other words, nights off in between

think of it this way Shaq was in orlando he had hakeem twice the whole season, ditto robinson, ditto er- Vlade? Russell had Wilt 10 times a season, ditto bellamy - that's 20 tough games right out the gate and even allowing vlade and willis on your list all you've named is 22 tough games

This.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Jace

I have trouble with Russell because of the competition; but then again, you can't fault him for that. Looking at his stats, his FG% could've been a little higher for a big man regularly playing against inferior competition. Can't argue against 11 championships, but again: competition. I generally leave him out of my top 5's because I don't know enough to be sure that he truly belongs there as a player, as much respect as I have for what he did.

As far as Bird vs. Kobe, I just don't see how the case could be made for Kobe over Bird. Kobe does have the edge in rings, and I won't fault him for Shaq being the MVP for the first 3 due to Bird having great teammates as well, but when looking at the stats I lean strongly to Bird. I'm not sure it's fair to give Kobe the edge for having played more seasons, with Bird starting his NBA career way later. The back stuff sucks, but ending your career at 35 is nothing to be ashamed of. Who knows how much Kobe would actually have had left in him if it weren't for modern German engineering.

Kobe is aesthetically as skilled/talented/fundamentally-impressive a scorer as the league has ever seen, but I think efficiency and team concept are extremely important when ordering the top of the all-time list. He sort of took the "fun" parts of Jordan's game and ran with them. People want to debate Jordan vs. Kobe, but to me what made Michael so impressive was that he was able to score at such a ridiculous clip, as a perimeter player, while shooting over 50%. In terms of assists, the difference in assist percentage is pretty negligible, though I'd argue MJ played with the better playmaker in Pippen than what Kobe had with Odom/Fisher.

We can really only judge these guys against their peers and what Russell did against his peers - 11 championships in 13 years, 5 MVPs, generally regarded as the best defensive player ever - is pretty astounding. I typically don't like talking about players from that era because a.) I was not alive, and b.) the game is very different. But all that said, I can't leave Russ out of the top five.

As for Kobe/Bird, yeah, Kobe played with Shaq, but no 21-23 year old in the history of basketball would have been the first option on those teams. And even in spite of playing with the MDE he still has the same amount of finals MVPs as Bird does.

The stats argument doesn't really work here either.For all the nerds out there, Kobe/Bird have identical PERs despite Kobe coming into the league at 17 and off of the bench for two years. Compare them year by year and it's Bryant comfortably. Bird's stats might look prettier on a stat sheet, but that's due to inflation of his era. 24/10/6 in 1984 isn't the same as 24/10/6 today, the game was just played at a much faster pace.

I do want to reiterate that I do not think that Kobe is clearly better than Larry, merely that they are definitely comparable.

I don't agree with your analysis of Kobe/Jordan. I don't think Kobe copied the "pretty" facets of Jordan's game, it's pretty clear that he copied pretty much anything. Kobe is just an inferior athlete, plays against tougher perimeter defenders, and is more prone to hero ball. And it's not like the gap in their efficiency is staggering or anything, Jordan was obviously more efficient and better than Kobe, but his career TS% is less than one and a half points higher than Kobe's. That's certainly substantial, but not a staggering number by any means.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by Luke

We can really only judge these guys against their peers and what Russell did against his peers - 11 championships in 13 years, 5 MVPs, generally regarded as the best defensive player ever - is pretty astounding. I typically don't like talking about players from that era because a.) I was not alive, and b.) the game is very different. But all that said, I can't leave Russ out of the top five.

As for Kobe/Bird, yeah, Kobe played with Shaq, but no 21-23 year old in the history of basketball would have been the first option on those teams. And even in spite of playing with the MDE he still has the same amount of finals MVPs as Bird does.

The stats argument doesn't really work here either.For all the nerds out there, Kobe/Bird have identical PERs despite Kobe coming into the league at 17 and off of the bench for two years. Compare them year by year and it's Bryant comfortably. Bird's stats might look prettier on a stat sheet, but that's due to inflation of his era. 24/10/6 in 1984 isn't the same as 24/10/6 today, the game was just played at a much faster pace.

I do want to reiterate that I do not think that Kobe is clearly better than Larry, merely that they are definitely comparable.

I don't agree with your analysis of Kobe/Jordan. I don't think Kobe copied the "pretty" facets of Jordan's game, it's pretty clear that he copied pretty much anything. Kobe is just an inferior athlete, plays against tougher perimeter defenders, and is more prone to hero ball. And it's not like the gap in their efficiency is staggering or anything, Jordan was obviously more efficient and better than Kobe, but his career TS% is less than one and a half points higher than Kobe's. That's certainly substantial, but not a staggering number by any means.

You don't think a 23 year old Lebron James would've been a first option on that team?

[Luke]

Absolutely not.

[e-monk]

vis the shaq question - shaq needed a closer just as much as russell needed sam jones or kareem needed oscar or magic - shaq wasnt going to win anything on his own because bigs (especially those who cant shoot ftas and have their coaches yank them in the final minutes) cant win tight games - kobe was every bit as important to those title teams as shaq (ask the Spurs)

and in light of this vis 23 year old lebron, no he's only learned how to close in the last couple years

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Luke

I don't agree with your analysis of Kobe/Jordan. I don't think Kobe copied the "pretty" facets of Jordan's game, it's pretty clear that he copied pretty much anything. Kobe is just an inferior athlete, plays against tougher perimeter defenders, and is more prone to hero ball. And it's not like the gap in their efficiency is staggering or anything, Jordan was obviously more efficient and better than Kobe, but his career TS% is less than one and a half points higher than Kobe's. That's certainly substantial, but not a staggering number by any means.

Might've misspoken a little there. Kobe definitely also emulated his D, but I don't love TS% for these comparisons because it aids the better 3-point/FT-shooter, just a personal preference. Kobe plays against tougher perimeter defenses? I think there were more players committed to playing tough D in Jordan's day (I'm willing to hear out your argument on this one, I just don't see it right now), and again, handchecking. I just think he's much more of an aesthetic facsimile of Jordan than a substantive one, contrary to what many casual fans believe.

RE: Bird/Kobe stat comparison, you're right, at least in terms of assists (assist %), where Bird doesn't have a huge lead over Kobe. Rebound-wise he does (rebound rate), but that's not an apples-apples comparison because of size/position differences. Bird's top 3 offensive rating seasons were 121, 121, and 119. Kobe's top 3 were all 115. (Bird edges Kobe 115-112 over their careers)

I'm not sure it's Kobe "comfortably" looking year-to-year. FG% is pretty important, and looking at the raw per 36 numbers, Bryant's edge in ppg isn't all that signifcant. I will change my stance to it being more comparable than I originally believed, based mostly on the assists being closer than I thought once pace-adjusted, though again, not apples-apples with Bird being a forward.

[Dee-Zy]

I'm curious to hear the argument of Magic vs Kobe actually, especially since they were both Lakers AND played with a top 10, top 5 big man.

[Luke]

Why anyone would put more stock into FG% than TS% is beyond me, but I digress.

And defense as a whole may have been better when Mike played, and there was certainly more dominant big men that could play both ways, but there are clearly more athletic 6'5-6'8 guys being thrown at Kobe than there ever were at MJ.

I should probably just put Jordan >> Kobe at the end of every post to avoid confusion.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dee-Zy

I'm curious to hear the argument of Magic vs Kobe actually, especially since they were both Lakers AND played with a top 10, top 5 big man.

Magic was better than Larry and Kobe.