Kobe: Hypothetical Question - Had he stayed in Charlotte

I agree except that they wouldn't be dominated by the same teams. Replace Durant with Kobe, and team wouldn't be good enough to ever get the opportunity to be destroyed by those teams... except maybe in the first round.

Can you imagine Westbrook and Kobe on the same team? My god it would be horrific...

 

I'm not a Kobe fan, but after this year's playoffs I just have to be realistic about Harden's weaknesses. Versatility counts for something, as we lost to the Lakers because they were able to successfully play small ball against us while still being bigger. Harden's stats numbers remain great, yes. But winning by 1pt is just as good as winning by 20. In the playoffs, you need to maintain a positive edge over every other opponent, even if the size of that edge varies depending on who you're playing.

 

I don't understand what you're saying. What would Kobe have solved for us against the Lakers? How was that loss on Harden? We lost to the better team, plain and simple. If anything, the fact that we actually HAD a mini Kobe (Westbrook) is one of the things that hurt us.

 

The Kobe cult is real.

What makes Kobe special though was his willingness to go from high flyer to learning post foot work and fadeaways from Dream. He adjusted his game to have much more longevity than Tracy. TMac could have been more like Kobe with more heart and determination. But Kobe needed a perennial all-star to cover up his recklessness when teams stacked their defense against him.

 

I'm not a Kobe fan. I'm just saying that our team needs more versatility, which is related to athleticism. Harden is skilled, but I think his major weakness is that he's not more athletic than the other players. So that means if another makes a good counter strategy vs. us, then we are kind of stuck.

Going way back, when Hakeem was leading the Rockets to our championships, we had a huge edge over Utah in the playoffs. This was even though Utah regularly had incredible stats vs. most of the league. It was because Hakeem was more athletic and just flat out better than Malone. Every once in a while, Dream would switch over to cover Malone, and you could see Malone go into a panic. Their whole offense would collapse.

 

I get you're a Kobe fan, but you seem to be taking this really personally, for some reason.

Durant won a ring with other very good players, yes. Just like Kobe had other great players on his team when he won rings. Kobe couldn't do it by himself. When he did make it to the playoffs by himself, he lost in the first round.

Giannis and his "plain bball?" Giannis is better at 25 than Kobe was, at 25. I looked up Kobe's best overall season (age 27, 2005-2006 season) and Giannis' best season (this current 2nd MVP one) is better than Kobe's best season. Giannis hasn't even reached his prime yet. By measurable statistics, Giannis is (or will be) better than Kobe Bryant.

I can make the same argument for Harden too. By the measurables, Harden is better than Kobe.

Picking a random skill or thing like footwork doesn't negate the numbers nor help your argument.

 

You're giving me fluffy conjecture here, but I still don't understand what your overarching point is... Explain to me what exactly Kobe would have done better for us against the Lakers. Replace Harden with Kobe, and you think we have a better shot at winning that series? How? Kobe would not have stopped Anthony Davis or LeBron... if anything, they would have torched him even more brutally. All while Kobe scored less efficiently.

BTW, Kobe never "shut down" Iverson in the finals. Iverson was... Iverson in the finals. Took 30 shots a game, made a little over 40% of them. He actually shot BETTER in the finals than he did for the whole playoffs in 2001. Kobe's defense was, at it's best, absolutely average. I say this based both on watching him, and on numbers (both of which favor Harden for the past few years). People think of him as a good defender because he looked like he was working so hard, but god was he an idiot. Overplayed his man constantly. The Kobe effect is why people think Beverley is a good defender.

 

I agree with your conclusion and your assessment of that Lakers team, which is underrated in the "all-time" lists because of the lack of star-power, but rates consistently in the top 5 in things like ELO. My point is that Kobe didn't need another top 10 guy to win, which is always the knock on him. Of course he benefited from being in LA, and of course LA put an amazing team around him.

 

Agree. And he changed his game as his body started to age. All these are reasons why Kobe probably still wins a ring or two even outside of LA.

 

For sure, but not needing another top 10 guy is not much of an argument in his favor, IMO, at least depending who we're comparing him to. Hell, none of the 2004 Pistons needed a top 10 guy around them to win a title. Sometimes depth/breadth is more important than raw starpower.

 

Lakers was able to get a decent group around Kobe during certain years. I didn't want to follow the Lakers, but it was difficult to ignore NBA news back then.

Didn't Kobe and his agent; pulled a 'Lebron', where they threaten to leave if they didn't get a better roster? Difference was Kobe stayed, but Lebron took his talents to Miami, back to Cleveland, and then to L.A.

 

2004 Pistons are about as unique a championship team as they come. Closest would be the Celtics or Heat if they win this year.

 

I hated Kobe. Harden is closer to Allen Iverson than Bryant. Both Harden and Iverson are great, have talent to be one of the greatest winners of all time but they just arent. Kobe was not turning over, standing around hiding from the shots in the clutch type of guy... he was murdering people. Kind of like Jimmy Butler/Westbrook with a lot greater basketball ability. Type of guy you shat your pants as an opposing teams fan. I only get that feeling with LBJ nowadays

 

First, I did not say swapping Kobe for Harden would allow us to beat the Lakers, and I am not a Kobe fan. If you want to argue about his greatness, argue with somebody else.

Second, I do believe Kobe was more athletic than Harden. He had a more diverse game than Harden. It is true that those plays were overall less efficient than Harden. But sometimes you just have to be a little bit better than the other team regardless of strategy. That's the central problem with the current Rockets. It's not Harden's fault, but it's something that the Lakers exposed. We need a way to better counter the counters. This is going to be a bigger problem for us next season, as the whole league is getting better at step back 3s, and our advantage is drying up.

 

I'd say the 2014 Spurs were pretty similar. Closest thing to a star on that team was 22 year old Kawhi, who wasn't exactly putting up all star numbers yet.

You could argue that the 2008 Celtics weren't terribly different either. That big three used to be superstars/all-stars, but they were all past their prime at that point and were just playing as a cohesive unit (with an up and coming Rondo).

There is an argument that all of those teams won without a real "superstar" or clear go-to player.

 

Kawhi led that team in BPM. He may not have had the star numbers but the DPOY defense was already there, as well as the improved shooting. He was well on his way; that team also caught the late prime of Duncan and Manu. Parker was more or less toast.

I think that Spurs team and the Celtics team had more top end talent, but I could see why others would feel differently.

 

I never denied Kobe was more athletic. I denied that that has any meaning in this discussion. Athleticism is one thing that made Kobe great. Still Harden isn't exactly unathletic, just isn't as fast or as high of a leaper. But he's strong and agile.

If you weren't saying Kobe would make us better than Harden, then I still just don't understand what point you were trying to make... You bring up Kobe's playoff success, and then something about how versatility hurt us against the Lakers (which I agree with), but don't seem willing or able to connect those two disjointed thoughts.

I'm not arguing about Kobe's greatness any further than saying he's not as great as Harden. That is very self evident to me, no matter how many rings each player has. Moreso than a few of the other players I compared favorably to Kobe.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up, but SOMEBODY led the Pistons in BPM, too. Not sure why that's relevant.

Those teams definitely had some great players, but so did the Pistons, and I think there is room for debate on how meaningful of a difference there is in each team's caliber of talent. I'm just saying those Pistons are not THAT unique, though I agree that on paper, they were a standout. They were right in the mix for years, though. Basically had the same trajectory as the Celtics... Big trade for a PF leads to title -> next year finals appearance -> then make some playoff noise for a few years -> done.

 

Oh dear heavens, Iverson was straight trash. He couldn't hold Harden's jockstrap. This is the kind of revisionist history you come to love in the sports world.

Kobe certainly wasn't shying away from shots, but that's because he was a low-IQ, bullheaded fool. Sometimes that paid off, but he was NOT better in the clutch than Harden, he just looked like it because he loved taking fadeaway threes with three defenders draped on him, and the one in 20 times one of them went in was the only time anyone would remember. If you look at actual numbers, Harden makes his team better in the clutch because he makes smarter plays. He doesn't force anything. He hasn't won a chip because he hasn't had as good of a team.

Like really, you think Kobe makes the WCF with Dwight Howard as his #2? Because he had his shot... and he had Pau on that team, too. You think he wins 55 games and goes to the second round with Ryan Anderson and Eric Gordon? Because I can tell you I DEFINITELY believe that if you replace Kobe with Harden on ANY of his championship teams, they win even more easily.

It's funny you bring up LeBron, too, because people used to sh*t on him the same way until 2012.