of course. So then come out and say Kobe had a great career but is a bit overrated. You said he was piggybacked by Shaq to 3 championships and then piggybacked by Gasol. because it would be Kobe, DWade, and Bosh. None of those 3 would have folded. and you're not putting enough weight on the ability to lead a team. Something Lebron couldnt seem to do well until this past year. If he can keep it up then the sky's the limit. He may even be able to overtake the GOAT title. But as of now, he's still behind Kobe imo. if nash wins a championship with LA where would you put him? Above kobe? The guy has back2back mvps. And dont give me the "lebron was robbed" and "that's different b/c nash didnt deserve his second one" bullsh!+.
Everything is subjective when it comes to arguements like this. Soooooo I just look at the POLL RESULTS, and I sleep better at night
I wouldn't call 27/7/7 far superior stats to 25/5/5. Lebron has a better shooting percentage but Kobe has been a better three point shooter and a much better free throw shooter over his career. Kobe also has two rings as the best player on a team so at this point unless you are in love with MVPs there is a great argument for Kobe.
Use some critical thinking skills. We're talking about guys that are both in the top 15 all time. Obviously, a great career is implied. But if you need me to explicitly say it, then Kobe has had a great career, but he is overrated. And I never said that he piggybacked Gasol to a title. I was responding to the poster who said that Lebron didn't lead the Heat to the title. My argument was that if he believes that, then Kobe hasn't led the Lakers to a title since Gasol outperformed Wade/Bosh. That's a horribly weak argument. Bosh folded last year against Dallas, and Kobe is known for his relatively poor finals performances. It's ridiculous to say that a Kobe-led Heat team would've beaten the Mavs, especially since the Mavs just SWEPT a Kobe-led Lakers team. He did it just fine. He's twice led a team to the finals. But out of curiosity, how are you defining "ability to lead a team"? It seems like all of Lebron's teammates enjoy playing with him. And on the other hand, it seems like Kobe's best teammates dislike playing with him (Shaq, Gasol). Is that how you lead a team? By alienating your fellow stars? No, Kobe would still be ahead of him. Nash won his MVP's a long time ago. He never led the Suns past the WCF, and his defense has always been questionable. Winning a championship with the Lakers would impact his legacy the same way David Robinson's was impacted by winning on a Duncan-led Spurs team. Actually, I think Nash deserved them both.
Actually, you said Kobe hasn't lead his team to ANY championships Which is why you lost all credibility on this subject. I feel embarrassed for you
Look at advanced stats. Lebron's are far superior. It's not about being in love with MVP's. It's about recognizing their value. The MVP is the most prestigious award the league can give a player. And Kobe's 2 rings as the best player on the team isn't a great argument when you consider the fact that Lebron has 1 ring as the best player on the team. And when you factor in Lebron's far superior stats and MVP's, there really isn't a good argument in favor of Kobe.
Are you sure I said that? Or did I say: Just to avoid any further confusion on your part, I'll be clear. Kobe was the leader on 2 championship Laker squads. But he didn't do it alone. He had the best frontcourt in the league, and when he played like garbage, his team carried him. But Kobe did lead them. In regards to players doing it alone in the modern era, I think its just Olajuwon in 1994 and Duncan in 2003.
What are all the advanced statistics I should look at? I think when most people say that they are basically saying check PER. Looking at true shooting percentage Lebron only has a slight 56% to 55% advantage. The MVP trophy isn't that good of an indicator of greatness IMO. If it defined who the best player in basketball was Jordan would have a lot more and Nash would not have two. You would find very few people that would consider Nash a better player than Kobe, Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Shaq etc. but he has more than all of them. The MVP is a nice trophy but to me it doesn't define greatness at all. For you to lean on that to discredit Kobe while not giving him credit for having 3 rings as a great number 2 on a 3peat team is a bit ridiculous to me. Also, for you to say there really isn't a good argument for Kobe having a more impressive career right now just proves that you are biased. You might not agree with the argument but there for damn sure is a good argument to be made for Kobe.
That's for their entire careers. Lebron's TS% is skewed downwards b/c of his poor rookie season. In regards to TS%, Lebron's last 4 seasons been better than any season Kobe has ever had. But if you look at any other of the advanced stats from basketball-reference.com, you'll see that Lebron's numbers are better. It is a measure of greatness, but it does have its limitations. It's a regular season award, its contingent on team record, and it operates in a vacuum in the sense that each year is entirely independent of other years. You have to put the MVP's in the proper context. Nash is not contemporaries with Olajuwon, Robinson, Barkley, or Malone. These 4 were limited in their MVP's b/c they played in the same era as Jordan. That's b/c you don't understand the significance of the MVP award. Have there been any MVP's who haven't made it to the HOF? Biased? How so? B/c I recognize that judging a player's individual legacy by team accomplishments is disingenuous? Or b/c I prefer efficient basketball? How do you rank Charles Barkley vs Pau Gasol? Who has a better legacy, and by how much?
I asked what advanced stats I should be looking at and you didn't tell me. So once again, what stats should are you referring to? What limited Shaq from only having one? People that argue against Kobe's first three love to say that he was the most dominant player in sports so why does he only have one? I understand it. Nobody is saying scrubs get the award. If you get the MVP you are one of the best players in the league but you aren't always the best. You do realize basketball is a team game right? Kobe didn't get Robert Horry rings where he was just a contributor. He was the clear number 2 option and had a huge impact on those rings. Afterwards he went on to win two more as the best player even though he was at the very end of his prime. Having two rings compared to one as the best player is a much bigger accomplishment to me than having 3 MVPs compared to 1. Charles has done so many things that Pau has minus a ring that comparing the two is ridiculous.
I did tell you. Go to basketball-reference.com and look at their advanced stats. Lebron leads in rebounding%, ast%, stl%, blk%, offensive rating, defensive rating, and win shares. Pretty much everything. In the 01 season, Philly and LAL had the same record. If I had to guess, I'd say Iverson got it b/c he had inferior teammates. Same thing in 02. Duncan's Spurs had the same record as Shaq's Lakers, but Duncan had inferior teammates. And it didn't help that Shaq missed 16 games. But in any case, Shaq was always in the discussion. Aside from the time Kobe won it, has he ever had a legitimate argument to win it? His best statistical seasons came when the Lakers had poor records. And by the time the Lakers started winning titles again, Lebron had become the best player in the league and was actually leading his team to the best regular season record. And that's the crux of our disagreement. In determining a player's individual legacy, I prefer to place more weight on certain individual awards. You prefer to place more weight on team accomplishments. The problem I have with your argument is that for both of Kobe's FMVP's, he played poorly. And yet he still won the FMVP simply b/c he was the "leader" of the team. And you're trying to use those performances to prove that Kobe's legacy is greater than Lebron's? Interesting. So you do understand the logic when its Pau vs Barkley, but you refuse to apply it when its Kobe vs Lebron.
Like having better numbers (high, avg and career totals at the same point), better regular seasons and postseasons and more MVPs???
5 >>>> 1. Simple as that, you guys overthinking this. LBJ has at least 4 years of winning consecutive 'ships in a row before he thinks of tying Kobe, much less surpassing him. Nothing. Else. Matters.
This is about whole career not at this point in their careers so your parenthesis about at the same point is pointless. As far as the Charles/Pau thing the gap is so much bigger than that. Pau never led his team out of the first round, Pau was never in the mvp discussion at the end of the season, Pau wasn't a perennial all star when he was a number one option, Pau never won a ring as the number one guy etc. Pau's deserves credit for his sidekick rings but they aren't enough to overcome Charles. The Kobe/Lebron accomplishments are much closer than Pau/Charles. Charles/Dirk is a much better comparison to me. And I think Lebron's one alpha ring is greater than Kobe's 3 with Shaq.
So you obviously have Bill Russell as the greatest player of all time, right? He's clearly well ahead of MJ, since last time I checked 11 >>>> 6. I guess MJ retired at least 5 years before he would have even been able to start thinking about tying Russell.
Ok, so at this point LeBron has: - had a better season than Kobe has ever had (arguably more than one) - had a better postseason than Kobe has ever had (arguably more than one) - has better career averages than Kobe - has 2 more MVP's than Kobe
The ring argument is the most ridiculous argument ever. Based on this silly logic, Barkley sucks and Robert Horry is one of the greatest ever. And Derek Fisher is much much better than John Stockton and Gary Payton.
