So what you're saying is that, while Bryant wasn't actually the best player, he'll be the best remembered of his generation, which is unfortunately probably true. Duncan was unquestionably better, Garnett was almost certainly better (and then there's Shaq and James, depending on whether you consider them the same generation or not), but it's certainly true that the player who plays the most on the biggest stage is remembered the most. And while Duncan played in the Finals as much, he didn't very consciously ape the most popular player in modern basketball history like Bryant did. He was far less attention-grabbing, in his persona and game...just devastatingly effective on both sides of the ball every single year, to a degree Bryant couldn't dream of matching.
I don't mean to be unappreciative of how great Bryant as a player was. Definitely HOF, although I wouldn't put him in the top 10 list. But man, he needs to know he's done. He needs to know his team doesn't really need him taking 17 3s a game. He needs to fade away quietly, playing 15-20 minutes, facilitating and allowing the young guys to do their things. He needs to know that most DLeague call-ups could probably play better and shoot better than him now. He doesn't just need to retire at season's end. He needs to play with the mindset that it's the younger players' time now. He hasn't got anything more to prove. He doesn't need to jack up 25 shots per game anymore. Right now, he's just embarrassing himself and hurting his legacy.
Kobe announcing his retirement is the best possible scenario for the Lakers. For the most part, this year was headed to becoming yet another lost season, but now it is not. All the teams in the league will be selling out their game vs Kobe as a "see Kobe for the final time" tour and the Lakers will change the focus from how bad they are to the Kobe farewell. People are going to the game to see Kobe jack up a bunch of shots weather he shoots .500 or .200.
You put it in a way that Kobe was this average player that happened to get a lot of credit because he was in the right place at the right time. As with life, people are inspired when they see extraordinary feats of greatness and really could care less about the statistical part of it. For example, I am very numbers oriented so I always take the conservative approach to investing in stocks or even gambling. I will always make safe plays in stocks and grind it out when I play poker, but that is not exciting at all even though it is the most mathematically successful approach. What inspires people are the long shot stocks that return 100-1 or the guy that goes all in on a flush draw that wins. That epitomizes who Kobe is. Duncan is the guy that takes the safe approach and plays within the lanes of a solid system. Kobe is the guy that says F@#$ the system, we are going to win this game and that is what inspires and that is why he is more popular and will be more remembered than Duncan. To me, his 81 point game against the modern game is more impressive than Wilt's 100 point game. And just a few weeks earlier, he had a game where he had 62 points after 3 quarters vs the Mavs who were only at 61 as a team. Phil Jackson thought that, if he wanted to, Kobe could have gone for 100 that game being the game was over, but he sat him in the 4Q. Why doesn't Tim Duncan ever get dinged for being on good teams for his championships the way Kobe does? He played his entire career with one very good coach and also happened to win titles on teams with David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and more recently Kahwi Leonard who is the best two way player in the NBA right now. I don't know why you think Kobe was a media hog. Part of the reason why the media turned on him is because he's a very private person like Duncan. His personality is very private, but when he is on, his game is at a higher level than probably anyone in the history of the NBA. He is like Maverick in Top Gun. All his moves are not the statistically correct things to do, but when you need someone to accomplish the impossible, you go to him. That is why is will be remembered for his generation like MJ a decade before and that is why he inspired the greatest NBA players of today to get to where they are today. Most of these guys were on an all or nothing journey in life and Kobe is the ultimate inspiration to a road to success based on how he approached the game. He always said that every season where he did not win a championship was a failed season and played with that same all or nothing mentality his entire career.
Kobe should have 7 rings as he left two on the table in 2004 and 2008. But most say that MJ shoud have had 8 as he left two on the table in 1994 and 1995 for getting himself suspended for gambling. So for comparison purposes to guys like Kareem and Bill Russell, MJ shoud have 8 titles and Kobe should have 7. But that said, MJ is #1 all time playoff scorer and Kobe is #3 so their legacies in the playoffs (the only season that matters in the NBA) are at the top all time.
Really? Kobe's season long farewell parade chucking up 25 shots per game shooting 30/20% is more important than developing the younger players on that team?
THANK YOU, patron saint Kobe "Kirby" You made the first victory by the Philly 76ers in the 2015-16 season possible
He does, but unlike Kobe he was the best player on his team in je majority of his championships. This post does not make any sense. It is different when a Player does not play in the NBA than when he plays terrible in the finals and doesn't win. Also for some reason that 81 point game is one of the reasons that you keep saying how great Kobe is. Was it impressive yes of course. But there are many other great scorers who could have gotten that many points if they played just as selfish as Kobe does. To me that game represents a lot of Kobe, He was a talented player who just did not know how to play in a team.
Kobe will never have the business empire of MJ. The Michael Jordan brand was started at the peak of his career. Kobe never had and never will have such branding.
So Kobe should have 7 even though the main reason he doesn't have 7 is due to him playing like garbage in the 04 and 08 Finals?
Tim Duncan's championship teams didn't always have a good supporting cast. Look at the 2003 Spurs. They had a 37 year old David Robinson, a 2nd year Tony Parker, and a rookie Manu Ginobili. At that point in their careers, each of them were role players. In any case, I think there are 2 main reasons why Kobe gets dinged for playing on stacked championship teams. 1. First his first 3 titles, he wasn't the best player on his team. Shaq was definitively better than him. And regardless of who Duncan played with during his championship years, you can't definitively say he wasn't the best player on the team. 2. Game 7 in the 2010 finals. It was arguably the biggest game of Kobe's career, and he played poorly. And in spite of his poor play, the Lakers still won.
Tim Duncan has never missed the playoffs. He's won 50+ games every year, except for the strike shortened 99 season.
Being worse than Duncan makes you average? You seem extremely overly sensitive about Bryant's legacy if someone saying "Duncan was unquestionably better" in your minds equals "Bryant was an average player." Jordan was unquestionably better than Clyde Drexler. That doesn't make Drexler an average player. Right, Kobe is equivalent to Brett Favre in football...both players were often spectacular, both were gun-slingers, and both were far less efficient than their reputations will judge them for. Saying that Kobe will be better remembered than Duncan doesn't say much about who was better, just who played a more memorable style. Scoring 50 points on 40 shots is memorable, even if not actually that impressive. If someone said that Duncan was great because of his rings, that would be a perfectly reasonable point to make. I think Duncan was great because of his incredible offensive efficiency, brilliant individual and team defense and strong rebounding, year in and year out. I never judge players by their rings because I understand that it takes a team to win titles. It's not that he was a media hog, it's that he very consciously modeled his every move on Michael Jordan, right down to a "Dear Basketball" letter when he retired. It's a big reason why people think he's greater than he is--his impersonation of Jordan's style was so good, people have conflated him with Jordan even though Bryant has never even approached Jordan's efficiency or his defensive prowess.
Ohh, I do wonder if that is his official starting 5 because if that is the case Olajuwon over Lakers centers eg. Kareem, Shaq, Wilt.
The hero I grew up with. I loved the Tmac Kobe duels. I think Tmac has a better peak but Kobe is just... a god. Retire in peace, you've done enough.
Great... it's still a team sport. Isn't it strange how every year you can look at the roster and find the best players, and see which team has the most of them, and those teams seem to do better?? No... it's not strange, because it's a team sport. I'll say this here, and repeat it again below, the argument isn't whether Kobe was great, or not great. He was clearly an ALL TIME great. We're arguing over degrees of ALL TIME greatness. Clearly Kobe had "IT", whatever that means, and was a winner. No doubt. Not questioning that. But, just to compare to a KG or Dirk, I don't think it's logical to say Kobe has 5 rings and KG and Dirk only have 1, so Kobe has more "winning genes" in him or whatever. He was more of a winner, by fact, but whether that means anything... well I don't think much when considering circumstance. Kobe also happened to play with a top 5 center all time for 3 of them, and then had a front-court of Lamar, Gasol, Bynum for 2 of them, all at their prime... which is mind-blowingly good in retrospect. Which... AGAIN... is not to fault Kobe. Everyone should want to have that talent around them. It's more to point out Kobe doesn't have any real special sauce to his game and winning more than a KG or Dirk did. We've seen what he's done with less talented teams, and this bears out. Ok, but he was, and it should be factored in when/if using rings as an indicator of greatness. Partly... Kobe was the best player on those squads, but they were stacked. The 2 years they won were Pau's best years. He put up PERs north of 22. One of the years he led the league in offensive rating. Similarly Bynum was great. He also had PERs north of 20. Lamar Odom was inconsistent, but less so during those championship years, and was basically those years version of a Draymond Green. Not quite the three point shooter, but a better ballhandler and equally versatile defender. Kobe was the engine, but the Odom/Gasol/Bynum frontline was ridiculously good. Garnett was on an equally talented team there. And they got one ring and took the Lakers down to the wire the next year. Jason Kidd (at his age) and Tyson Chandler were really stellar role players. That's it. Right, he only got to play alongside the most dominant center of the last 30 years not named Hakeem, the greatest role player ring wise of the last 30 years and then a Dallas Mavericks esque surrounding cast. Again, this isn't to disparage Kobe. His teams were so talented in LARGE PART because he was on them and the 1-2 punch with another all time great. Being coached by the winningest coach, by ring count, in NBA history. But that's expected right? Nobody is confusing James Harden for prime Kobe, or Dwight for prime Shaq (by a LONG LONG shot)... but our expectations as Rockets fans isn't ludicrous - we got two great players (well had, before Dwight's decline), we want rings. Finishing this era without them will be a disappointment as a Rockets fan. Oh, and as an aside, the late 90's to mid 2000's era of basketball was as a whole not exactly littered with great teams. No, I think I know basketball because I've watched it for 30+ years, played in for 25+ years, and appreciated the increased use of advanced stats where appropriate next to the use of raw stats. You can believe what you want... but different players play differently, and raw stats clearly fail to capture some of the nuances of the game, even among a similar group of all-time great peers. And I have no problem looking beyond stats... I just don't think an unbiased view of that helps Kobe and more than it does any other player. I am also happy looking to playoff stats. They aren't the be all, end all... the fact is the regular season creates the bulk of every players career. But playoffs obviously matters a lot. But, once again, I think an unbiased view of Kobe as a playoff performer doesn't elevate him over any other all time greats. I mean Duncan actually has a higher playoff PER than regular season (both higher than Kobe). Kobe's playoff PER declines from his regular season. The same with Dirk. Both higher PERs than Kobe, and higher PER in the playoffs compared to regular season. I know, I know... I'm looking at an advanced stat again!! Oh my. The eye test bore this out, to me, though, as a Rockets fan with no horse in the race for the better part of the last 2 decades. Kobe was a GREAT GREAT player, regular season and playoffs. He OF COURSE has some noteworthy moments, in the playoffs and the regular season. Hey... so do his similar peers, of his generation and others. The point is, Kobe seems to be OVERRATED more than UNDERRATED by the media, by history, and by public perception, when viewed on an unbiased basis. Exactly my point. Kobe's place in history is well-deserved, but on the whole overrated because of these items and not properly viewed with unbiased eyes if we are simply talking about which player is better in a vacuum. As I said when I entered this thread, I ranked Kobe as the 2nd best player of his generation. 1. Duncan 2. Kobe 3. Dirk But I think Dirk is closer than people think. And any talk of Kobe as a top 10 player in history is foolish. --- EDIT: I'll finish with this. So much of this is circumstance. Players clearly create their own success and luck, but a lot of it comes down to circumstance as well. I have no doubt in my mind had Kobe not been traded to the Lakers and played his first whatever years on the Hornets, Kobe's legacy would be completely different and nowhere near as powerful as it is... despite being much the same player.
