The quality of the posts in the dish has really gone down lately. From all the Kobe fanboys to the posters claiming that 25 years of evolution has dramatically changed human athleticism... it's just getting plain ridiculous.
You don't really have any knowledge of '80s basketball, do you? "From the highlights reels..." Wow. The quality of the big men Bird faced during his era easily overshadows what we have today and that was an era where post play was a battle. Not only that, but Bird was routinely guarded by players who were more athletic than him because of his ability to also shoot from the outside. And. He. Destroyed. Them. All.
Bird's Celtics were one of the few teams that I knew the rockets could not beat. It made me sick to my stomach but that guy was just unreal. He would dominate this soft-a$$ league. Yeah he wasnt the most athletic but he was methodically crazy. you think kobe is obsessed.. Bird would break Kobe's arm if he tried to elbow him in the neck.
I've seen so many threads about Kobe, and if he can wins another ring does he pass or become equal to MJ (and be consider the greatest ever), even on this site. Yet, I have to say even some people argue he's better than MJ ... is he better than say ... the Hick From French Lick. Both players averaged 19.3 FG a game, though Kobe averages one more whole point on .455 vs. Larry's .496. From 3 point range, Bird average .376 over his career vs. .340. Kobe has never shot over 47% in his career and only over 37% once (in his rookie season). Bird shot over .500, five times in his career and in 6 other seasons his FG% was higher than Kobe's best shooting season. Bird's weakest was in his last two seasons, at 45% and 46%, this is Bird with a bad back and probably past his prime. Bird also completely annihilates Kobe in regards to rebounds, assists, scoring efficiency, and free throw shooting. Larry even averaged more steals a season than Kobe. Next is defense, I know some posters are going to disagree, but on defense, Bird was near or arguably as good as Kobe. I think just as capable of locking down certain players, like Kobe did. Most of all, 3 MVPs and 2 Finals MVPs vs. 1 MVP and 1 Finals MVP. I also do not think it is valid argument that some people use for Kobe, saying, " Well he should have had more MVPs as Nash or Nowitzki did not deserve those." Even the argument is even more ridiculous, "Oh he was just as much a part of those title teams as Shaq was (even though Shaq averaged, like 34 ppg and 14 rebs over 3 NBA Finals, while Kobe's numbers were little ... underwhelming). Which brings to my final point, Kobe's NBA Final numbers are slightly inferior Larry the Legend's. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
Stats are good for baseball, but they suck for sports such as basketball and football... Simply put in a baseball, your batting avg is your batting avg.. You don't have to depend on another teammate for you to hit the ball. But in basketball and football you have to rely on your teammates... Both players averaged 19.3 FG a game Too many obstacles and variables.. 1) How many games did they defer to another teammate that was hot... 2) Did they play the entire game all 4 quarters... 3) How many shots were taken with only seconds left on the clock... 4) Are we avg seasons where I started or just coming off the bench... 5) How many games or seasons did I play injured... Stats just give you a round about number and not the entire story... So looking at numbers for each player for comparison is not a true statement of how good they were... ... Now this to me is how you can compare how a good a player is... As Magic once stated a GOOD player will only make hisself better, a GREAT player will make his teammates better.
When you start to actually analyze what Kobe has done in this league, you realize that the only impressive thing is the longevity. It's a huge accomplishment to be as good as he has for so long, but he has never but in the upper echelon of stars. He has one MVP and he doesn't even deserve that one as Lebron was much better that year as well. He is, simply, one of the many talented swingmen (VC, TMac, Wade, etc) who happened to be paired up with one of the best players ever for most of his career, and then was gift-wrapped one of the top players in the league later, when he was dwelling in mediocrity and setting all-time chucking records. Comparing him with Larry Legend or MJ is a massive insult to those guys, who were lead dogs for top teams their entire career. Also, LOL @Kobe never shooting 47%. Not even once?
As much as people want to dissect and dismiss his career, Kobe's 81 points on 28-46 shooting (7 for 13 from 3 point land) a few years back is nothing to scoff at. Hell, for the stat geeks, his career 23.5 PER rating is 17th all-time tying him with Basketball Jesus himself. List is here
Yes, Kobe is the gold standard of chuckers. The 46 shots (I believe he also ha a game of 49 shots) is especially impressive. The thing about Kobe is, no matter how many games he plays, he will keep shooting and shooting even when it's obvious it isn't working. See no further than game #3 the other day, which the Lakers would have won comfortably if Kobe weren't so desperate to get the Finals MVP (which, ironically, may end up hurting him as his Finals FG% has crept below 40% yet again!) Looking at that list, that's all I need to know to tell me that PER is a massively flawed formula. David Robinson at #4?
PER is a measure of efficiency. David Robinson was a great (efficient) scorer and top rebounder and shot blocker. The metric is not flawed. Robinson was one of the top (regular season) centers to ever play the game. He had a habit of not playing as well in the playoffs, and that's what you're remembering when you're trying to say he shouldn't rank so high on the list.
You mean the Game 3 where NO ONE on the Lakers team aside from Fisher was hitting their shots? I also DO remember that Kobe's late bucket put the Lakers up by 4, which had put the Celtics in the hole even more. Kobe will shoot and shoot, I'll agree with that, but isn't that what you want out of your #1 player? I, mean, LeBron got burned at the stake for his disappearing act against the Celts this year. As far as Finals MVP, I'm quite sure Kobe doesn't give a damn about that award at this point in his career. A fifth championship for him means more than any Finals MVP award. Your apparent biasness against anything NOT the Houston Rockets is making you look like a less-informed basketball fan. No where did I say this list was the list for Great Players of All Time. It's a list that deals with efficiency (albeit, a calculation that definitely needs a bit of refinement) and it's as good as it gets in terms of gauging a player's production. David Robinson, despite being thoroughly undressed by Olajuwon in 1995, was a pretty damn good player and his PER proves just that. I think he also finished 1st 3 years running in the 1990s on IBM's player chart, which was a PER-like system before Hollinger's. Anyone that remembers only Robinson from that 1995 playoff matchup really don't remember how good he was on both ends of the floor. He just had the unfortunate fate of going up a better and hungrier player. Of course, PER doesn't tell us who the best players are (that's always up for debate), but the production/efficiency it measures is pretty good.
Sorry... But no they DON'T.... Bernard King avg 22.7 points a game and in one season alone avg 39.2 pts a game... Does that make him as good as Bird, Majic, Jordan or Kobe?? Stats will only give you an average of a number.... But it cannot tell you the entire story of a player.
This is definitely true. For example, a player like Robert Horry, from his young days as a Rocket to his clutch days in San Antonio, never had eye popping seasons but he managed to do what was needed to win and be at the right spot, at the right time, for the right shot.
