currently LBJ has been the best since last season, during which he'd finally appplied himself to be on the all defensive team. the 2-3 years before, Kobe was the best player in the NBA which 2-3 year would that be. p.s. no one has mentioned KG because, simply, he has never been the best. that's just your opinion, such as it is. If Kobe is top 10, then where is Tim Duncan? Top 20 because we can't have anyone from San Antonio be better than Hakeem? Oscar Robertson. Referred to here by some as "not as good as Kobe". By my count, Oscar has 6 years where his win share is better than Kobe's best. Has Kobe ever averaged a triple double in a season? Top 10? Kobe isn't close. David[/QUOTE]
The fact that so many people love him and hate him at the same time has to mean something. I mean, look at this forum, it's a rocket's site yet there are a ton of Kobe threads. You've gotta be really good to attract this much attention. Who would care if he was some role player or scrub? There's no doubt that Kobe has been one of the main figure heads of the nba for the past decade, his team is the main draw whether you like it or not. He just makes people want to watch basketball, whether it's just to enjoy his skills or just to watch him fail spectacularly. He's gotta be at the top 10 or near it at least.
In terms of career accomplishments, and awards, he'd probably be in my 10-12 range. You've got Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Russell ahead of him. Then Olajuwon, Duncan, and Shaq. That's in no specific order, but I'd put those nine over Bryant. He could easily slide into that 10th spot, but if you look at guys like Moses, or a prime Julius Erving INCLUDING his ABA accomplishments, he could slide to 12. I think he surpassed West last season, same with Oscar. So, he'd prob be 10 for me, but just as easily could be 12. I don't like the guy, but I respect his game, and what he's done.
I just see Kobe as more professional (even if its only superficial). Jordan's more...well...Jordan. i don't see kobe b****ing about some other star being on his Olympic team (e.g Michael with Isaiah) or acting all smug at his HOF speech.
Win share? You can have 100% win share on a lottery team and no one gives a damn. Last time I checked, Kobe has 4 rings, O has 1. [/QUOTE]
Not taking sides in this particular argument, but when you're comparing individual greatness, it pointless to bring up team accomplishments unless everything else is too similar and a deciding factor is needed.
So Bill Russell is the Greatest Player of All Time, and the list of the greatest players is full of Celtics? Rings are a significant factor but not the only factor. On topic, I don't think he's quite top 10 but he's close. I have Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Russell, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Erving over him for sure, with Duncan probably over him and West/Robertson in competition with him. If he wins again he probably moves into the top 10.
81 points in a game. A season of 35 points per game. 4 rings. As much as I hate the guy, there's no doubt he's already a top 10 player in the history of the league. I have to take a huge sigh though. There was a time when you could make a legit argument that McGrady was as good as, if not better, than Kobe. And we had him in the prime of his career. DAMNIT T-MAC I hope you do go to the moon.
Russell was discounted since NBA wasn't that popular at his time, there were fewer teams. No salary cap like today and Celtics were just like Yankees, they had a team of all stars. And people like to emphasize recent players because they see them play, we are just human. Had Russell strung 11 rings after 80s, yes, he had to be greatest of all time. If you really want to use win share, use the sum of win share * ring. Big O had a triple double in a season, but we had a league averaged 140 a game too. Hell, even when MJ got 37 ppg, the league average 109.9. Nowadays Suns of last several seasons could not crack that number. You have to put numbers in context. Most non Rox fans put Kobe before Dream and I couldn't see an argument Dr.J/west before Kobe. Kobe's also commonly referred as the best player of the decade. It's close, but likely he'll surpass Shaq and TD when it's all said and done.
It depends on how you win and what you do. Playing for an organization that is known for winning is pretty simple. For instance, the Lakers are a winning organization so it is easy for top 3-5 players in the league playing with LA to win titles. That won't happen with any other franchise automatically except maybe Boston. Bulls were not a winning organization until MJ came along and and since he left still is a losing organiazation. Rockets were not a winning organization until Hakeem came along and once he left have not had much success (past the first round once in 12 years) Pistons were not a winning organization until Isiah came along The Spurs were constantly winning 50+ games with David Robinson but didn't start winning titles until Duncan came along. Lakers are a winning organization. Any star player who plays with the Lakers wins titles. It is a guarantee. That's why Kobe's legacy means nothing because he went to a winning organization. Put him in an organization that has never done anything like Atlanta from the get go and we would see how good he really was.
I really don't understand why people think fewer teams implies weaker competition. Fewer teams implies that the talent is concentrated; pretty much every team had a Hall of Famer on their team and there were usually 3-4 very stacked teams, the Celts being the prominent one, but the Lakers, Sixers, Knicks, Warriors, Bucks, Royals also being stacked at points during the 1960's. If we took a team with 3-4 Hall of Famers who meshed together on the court today, it might win even more championships than the Celtics. If you want to account for pace adjustment, you also have to account for lack of treys and thus the change in spacing, the fact that dribble after a pass implied no assist back in the 1960's i.e. Robertson could have had even more assists, etc, which would work in Robertson's favor in such an argument. I think only Lakers fans would put Kobe before Olajuwon, and fairly ignorant Lakers fans at that. If Erving played in the NBA his whole career, he'd be in the "Immortal 7", adding himself to the Immortal 6 of Wilt/Jordan/KAJ/Russell/Magic/Bird, in another tier above Kobe, and the late ABA had almost achieved talent parity with the NBA. I think it's clear he's greater than Bryant. West is closer and Kobe's probably passed him up but he was a dominant player on both ends of the floor, could play both guard positions, and one of the greatest clutch players ever. I don't think Kobe can possibly surpass Shaq, and at the rate Duncan is going I don't think he can surpass Duncan either.
hell no, Julius is the most over-rated player of all time. If Erving played in the NBA all his life, he would not have been as productive. Erving has never clutch to the degree that Kobe and Mr. Clutch have been. Kobe has already passed Shaq
To add to the subjectivity, yes rings are figured in heavily in the rankings no doubt about it. We also know that Steve Kerr has more rings than Karl Malone, Lebron James and Charles Barkley combined. If pace adjusted stats raise Kobe's level to Jordan's, then it does it for everyone else in the league as well. I dont hold it against Kobe that he isnt a superb rebounder or assist man. Let the big men grab the boards, let the scoring guards create points.
Fewer teams means that the popularity of the sport is low. That means that there are fewer people who play recreationally, and that leads to a reduced pool players. Today, basketball is played all over the world, and the best players from each country come to the NBA. It makes sense that the competition today will be stronger than it was 40 years ago.
Kobe had 29/7/6 kind of number in 01 playoff, 02 numbers were close. Good enough for MVP standard in this league. Sure Shaq was dominant, but Kobe wasn't exactly a role player like Kerr, or even Pippen, he's option 1b. The only good comparison in history may be West when he won his only ring, he had 32/8/8 kind of number in finals but didn't win MVP coz Wilt was the man.
