PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Ranks Kobe 12, Behind Oscar, Lebron, Hakeem, Shaq & Duncan



TDE
02-05-2016, 09:47 PM
What are your thoughts?! He definitly belongs ahead of Hakeem and Oscar. But then again it is ESPN

Pakman
02-05-2016, 09:51 PM
This gone be good.

HandsOnTheWheel
02-05-2016, 10:00 PM
*****ing doesn't solve anything.

jerellh528
02-05-2016, 10:00 PM
Even the biggest Kobe haters have him at 10. No big deal though, his legacy is cemented amongst the best of all time. Prolly the second biggest global basketball icon ever behind Jordan.

lakerfan85
02-05-2016, 10:32 PM
Meh.. If you're in the top 12 ever that's pretty ****ing good..

still1ballin
02-05-2016, 10:48 PM
llullz !!

More-Than-Most
02-05-2016, 10:50 PM
I can see an argument from anywhere between 8-12... Id have him in my top 10 though... probably 9 or 10

mngopher35
02-05-2016, 11:12 PM
I can see an argument from anywhere between 8-12... Id have him in my top 10 though... probably 9 or 10

Ya I think this is about the lowest I'd not have issues with but personally I have him 9 or 10 so a little higher than this list.

I also think they missed some in the middle teens and their order but it's not horrible or anything.

tredigs
02-05-2016, 11:12 PM
You can argue the longevity factor, but if I'm getting either Kobe or Hakeem to lead my organization during their 10-12 year prime, I'm taking Hakeem with ease. A top 5 defensive player in history who's going to give me 25 and 12 with durability, then step it up in the playoffs?? Yes, please. Next question.

mngopher35
02-05-2016, 11:16 PM
I'd take Hakeem too but personally I have kobe over Oscar, Russell (limited watching him so no expert but I have him 11), and arguably bird as well due to longevity.

Greedy22
02-05-2016, 11:18 PM
Lol behind Hakeem, Oscar and Duncan

KnicksorBust
02-05-2016, 11:23 PM
Their list is based on "peak performance and career value." I personally have Kobe #5 on my all-time list because I believe he had a better career than Dream or Shaq. But their limitted focus including peak performance makes it a lot easier to sell Kobe and buy on peak Hakeem or Diesel. At their absolute best I would take both of them over Kobe with relative ease.

numba1CHANGsta
02-05-2016, 11:37 PM
I guess ESPN only cares about the statistical category. I'll choose Kobe over Big O and Hakeem in a heartbeat. And LeBron at THIS point of his career is NOT a top 10 player.

LA_Raiders
02-06-2016, 12:25 AM
Lol... And that's why BSPN is a ******** channel. Fox sports rules...

tredigs
02-06-2016, 12:44 AM
To be clear, nearly nobody outside of Kobe stans will find #12 a ridiculous placement. It may be higher or lower than they have him, but ~8-13 is Kobe's range for many objective fans.

valade16
02-06-2016, 01:22 AM
I knew as soon as I saw Big O over Kobe people were going to lose their minds lol

LOb0
02-06-2016, 01:29 AM
He's appropriately ranked. No one has came out with any logical or statistical argument as to why he should be higher. Its really just delusional fanboy outrage.

HouRealCoach
02-06-2016, 01:51 AM
Hakeem is the greatest big man ever. Arguably the most skilled player ever. He has a great post game, great passer, good shooter, can dribble, great rebounder, great defender, great shot blocker and got a lot of steals for a man his size and also could run the floor very well. Not to mention he also had a cross over in his arsenal.

He won MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY all in one year in 1994 and won the title with Otis Thorpe as his second best player.

Let's not disrespect a man this damn great now

HouRealCoach
02-06-2016, 01:52 AM
And please don't even get me started on Duncan. The second greatest winner this league has seen besides Bill Russell

LOb0
02-06-2016, 01:59 AM
Hakeem is the greatest big man ever. Arguably the most skilled player ever. He has a great post game, great passer, good shooter, can dribble, great rebounder, great defender, great shot blocker and got a lot of steals for a man his size and also could run the floor very well. Not to mention he also had a cross over in his arsenal.

He won MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY all in one year in 1994 and won the title with Otis Thorpe as his second best player.

Let's not disrespect a man this damn great now

Yeah if there was a draft and Kobe and Hakeem were in it, I'm taking Hakeem every time.

Jayb587
02-06-2016, 02:11 AM
Kobe is probably slightly lower then he should be because people don't like him. But as the biggest Kobe fan ever I'm fully comfortable saying I don't care where he's ranked because in his best days he will put his nuts on everyone ranked ahead of him. Including your beloved Jordan.

More-Than-Most
02-06-2016, 03:18 AM
I guess ESPN only cares about the statistical category. I'll choose Kobe over Big O and Hakeem in a heartbeat. And LeBron at THIS point of his career is NOT a top 10 player.

I have lebron 6-8 :shrug:

ManningToTyree
02-06-2016, 03:30 AM
I'd have him around 8 but this is far from the most egregious mistake on the list.

TDE
02-06-2016, 03:30 AM
I have lebron 6-8 :shrug:
Wow, that's kinda high for a player who's career is not even finished. As it stands the highest I can put him is 9.

jerellh528
02-06-2016, 03:47 AM
Wow, that's kinda high for a player who's career is not even finished. As it stands the highest I can put him is 9.

I think at this point Lebron is allowed to be ranked with guys who've played their entire careers. Take Kobe for instance, he has been regarded as a player with elite longevity, but minus his years where he didn't start or out for injury and missed majority or all of the season, he's on his 16th season, only 15 good ones. Lebron is on his 13th so he's up there in seniority and mins played already.

More-Than-Most
02-06-2016, 04:33 AM
Wow, that's kinda high for a player who's career is not even finished. As it stands the highest I can put him is 9.

He has played more seasons then a top 2 player ever in Magic Johnson and next year will have played as many seasons as Jordan. He is still playing no doubt but he has more basketball under him then most of the others whom are in the top 10 or close to at least.

basch152
02-06-2016, 05:21 AM
Lol at people thinking kobe should be above hakeem.

One of the greatest defenders, great offensive player, very versatile, unselfish and a great leader.

Would take him over kobe without a second thought.

NYKalltheway
02-06-2016, 07:36 AM
Great, a thread about an overrated player being underrated :laugh2:

Chronz
02-06-2016, 08:48 AM
Big O is a huge enigma but if hes before Kobe, the rest of the list looks like a compete mess with no consistent direction. In other words, what I would expect from ESPN.

KnicksorBust
02-06-2016, 09:38 AM
Big O is a huge enigma but if hes before Kobe, the rest of the list looks like a compete mess with no consistent direction. In other words, what I would expect from ESPN.

Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

DarkKnight
02-06-2016, 10:48 AM
Serious question, Anyone see Oscar play ? Lol or Russel

J_M_B
02-06-2016, 11:16 AM
Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

If they're basing this list off of peak play then a guy like Wade needs to be higher and not at 27.

MTar786
02-06-2016, 12:06 PM
kobe would be ranked anywhere between 5 and 10 on most peoples rankings
i personally have kobe at 6 or 7 and i have wade anywhere between 14 and 17

YAALREADYKNO
02-06-2016, 02:58 PM
He should def be ahead of Oscar

TDE
02-06-2016, 04:40 PM
If we are taklking peak, you can move Jordan out of first and add Wilt and remove Bird and Russell out of the top 10 and move Stockton ahead of Magic. Your point is invalid.

Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

valade16
02-06-2016, 04:58 PM
If we are taklking peak, you can move Jordan out of first and add Wilt and remove Bird and Russell out of the top 10 and move Stockton ahead of Magic. Your point is invalid.

You think Stockton's peak was better than Magic's?

Raps18-19 Champ
02-06-2016, 05:32 PM
He should probably be ranked above Oscar but he should be behind the other guys.

Raps18-19 Champ
02-06-2016, 05:33 PM
Their list is based on "peak performance and career value." I personally have Kobe #5 on my all-time list because I believe he had a better career than Dream or Shaq. But their limitted focus including peak performance makes it a lot easier to sell Kobe and buy on peak Hakeem or Diesel. At their absolute best I would take both of them over Kobe with relative ease.
Yuck.

KnicksorBust
02-06-2016, 06:01 PM
Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

If they're basing this list off of peak play then a guy like Wade needs to be higher and not at 27.

Where ?

KnicksorBust
02-06-2016, 06:02 PM
If we are taklking peak, you can move Jordan out of first and add Wilt and remove Bird and Russell out of the top 10 and move Stockton ahead of Magic. Your point is invalid.

Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

Valade pointed out the absurd Stockton quote so that leaves me with you saying Bird and his 3 straight league MVPs is not top 10. Good luck finding 10 guys who dominated enough to win 3 straight MVPs. :)

IKnowHoops
02-06-2016, 06:03 PM
You can argue the longevity factor, but if I'm getting either Kobe or Hakeem to lead my organization during their 10-12 year prime, I'm taking Hakeem with ease. A top 5 defensive player in history who's going to give me 25 and 12 with durability, then step it up in the playoffs?? Yes, please. Next question.

Easy descision. I'd take Drob easily starting a team as well. That's why I don't have a problem at all with the rankings. I actually have Kobe 13-15 all time, and its based on who I would start a team with.

IKnowHoops
02-06-2016, 06:15 PM
Where ?

Well seeing as his peak was higher than Kobe's, before him. I have Wade Tmac and Kobe in no order 12,13,14 based on 80% Peak and 20% Longevity.

dnl123
02-06-2016, 06:17 PM
It is a fair ranking. It is not a dig at Kobe to rank him 12th best all time. It's a great honor and it is well deserved to be considered in the top 20 to ever play. It's only a bad ranking to the idiots online who haven't seen any basketball before 2000.

IKnowHoops
02-06-2016, 06:21 PM
Well seeing as his peak was higher than Kobe's, before him. I have Wade Tmac and Kobe in no order 12,13,14 based on 80% Peak and 20% Longevity.

1. Jordan
2. Bron
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Wilt
6. Hakeem
7. Drob
8. Duncan
9. KG
10. Durant
11. Curry
12. Wade
13. Tmac
14. Kobe
15. Magic
16. Bird
17. Oscar
18. Moses
19. Dr. J
20. Mailman
21. Barkley

Laker Legend42
02-06-2016, 07:08 PM
Most of the time when Kobe is the topic of conversation shooting percentage/efficiency are used to discredit his game. One thing that's not taken into consideration is how a lot of guys are concerned with shooting percentages and not willing to take shots late in the shot clock. In his prime Kobe was also a top defender. Not many guys can expend the energy on the defensive end against the other teams best perimeter player and still score 30+. I not too bothered by his ranking but I don't see how anyone can put Lebrun,track or wade ahead of Kobe. I think Lebrun will surpass him just not yet.

JLynn943
02-06-2016, 07:13 PM
To be clear, nearly nobody outside of Kobe stans will find #12 a ridiculous placement. It may be higher or lower than they have him, but ~8-13 is Kobe's range for many objective fans.

Yup. 12 is reasonable.

KnicksorBust
02-06-2016, 09:33 PM
Magic and Bird getting dogged right now. People acting like Magic didnt go to 9 finals and Bird wasnt the best player in the world for 3 straight seasons.

valade16
02-06-2016, 10:04 PM
Well seeing as his peak was higher than Kobe's, before him. I have Wade Tmac and Kobe in no order 12,13,14 based on 80% Peak and 20% Longevity.

1. Jordan
2. Bron
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Wilt
6. Hakeem
7. Drob
8. Duncan
9. KG
10. Durant
11. Curry
12. Wade
13. Tmac
14. Kobe
15. Magic
16. Bird
17. Oscar
18. Moses
19. Dr. J
20. Mailman
21. Barkley

I'm very high on LeBron but saying his peak is better than Kareem, Shaq, Wilt and Hakeem, I don't know.

I also think Moses Malone is pretty low based on peak. 3 MVPs in 4 seasons is a pretty good peak.

AIRMAR72
02-07-2016, 12:15 AM
What are your thoughts?! He definitly belongs ahead of Hakeem and Oscar. But then again it is ESPN I strongly disagree Kobe Bryant is NO where in same light as Hakeem Kobe should be in late teens

AIRMAR72
02-07-2016, 12:28 AM
Hakeem is the greatest big man ever. Arguably the most skilled player ever. He has a great post game, great passer, good shooter, can dribble, great rebounder, great defender, great shot blocker and got a lot of steals for a man his size and also could run the floor very well. Not to mention he also had a cross over in his arsenal.

He won MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY all in one year in 1994 and won the title with Otis Thorpe as his second best player.

Let's not disrespect a man this damn great now EXACTLY Clyde was a better player than kobe Mitch Richmond and scottie also Tracy Mcgrady(injures

More-Than-Most
02-07-2016, 12:48 AM
EXACTLY Clyde was a better player than kobe Mitch Richmond and scottie also Tracy Mcgrady(injures

:pity:

Just stop please.

KnicksorBust
02-07-2016, 03:41 AM
Their list is based on "peak performance and career value." I personally have Kobe #5 on my all-time list because I believe he had a better career than Dream or Shaq. But their limitted focus including peak performance makes it a lot easier to sell Kobe and buy on peak Hakeem or Diesel. At their absolute best I would take both of them over Kobe with relative ease.
Yuck.

Great analysis. :)

Here is a challenge... make a list of all the players that could claim to have been a top 5 player in the league for a dozen consecutive years. Then cross reference that list with players that have 5 rings or more. Then get back to me.

AIRMAR72
02-07-2016, 03:51 AM
:pity:

Just stop please. NO will not especially when it comes to FACTS

ink
02-07-2016, 04:37 AM
12 is a decent ranking and he'll drop over time as other talent comes into the league. He'll always be the Jordan facsimile. Facsimiles are rarely remembered. He's practically forgotten and hasn't officially retired yet. Imagine 10-20 years from now with the talent this league produces.

ink
02-07-2016, 04:39 AM
Magic and Bird getting dogged right now. People acting like Magic didnt go to 9 finals and Bird wasnt the best player in the world for 3 straight seasons.

Both remain above Kobe.

More-Than-Most
02-07-2016, 04:40 AM
Great analysis. :)

Here is a challenge... make a list of all the players that could claim to have been a top 5 player in the league for a dozen consecutive years. Then cross reference that list with players that have 5 rings or more. Then get back to me.

To be fair that list would not involve Kobe then and I have him in my top 10 all time because he was never top 5 in the league 12 of his career years... He was the best player in the league once and that is arguable because of Lebron in 06... He was top 5 a few times but not close to 12 times and sure as hell not consecutively

Give me your top 10 if you dont mind just out of curiosity.

Shlumpledink
02-07-2016, 04:51 AM
Kobe is definitely better than Big O, whether you're saying pure basketball ability or by career achievement.

No way is Kobe better than Hakeem though. Hakeem is arguably the best defensive center of all time, and top 5 offensively. Couple that with elite rebounding numbers. Had Ralph Sampson stayed healthy we're looking at the guy having more awards for people to count. Never mind that it took him a while to get decent coaching, too

mngopher35
02-07-2016, 04:51 AM
Great analysis. :)

Here is a challenge... make a list of all the players that could claim to have been a top 5 player in the league for a dozen consecutive years. Then cross reference that list with players that have 5 rings or more. Then get back to me.

I mean do you want exactly that criteria or something close to it? If it's exactly you could start saying that with every player and their years as top x player with so many mvps, rings, FMVP's, or DPOY etc to make cut offs where only a couple people apply even if they have more of the other awards (plus I think you could argue Kobe not fitting top 5 12 years straight anyways). If not exactly what you said but very similar then 5 off the top of my head who fit that would be...

Russell
Jordan (breaks consecutive rule but not due to ability)
KAJ
Duncan
Magic

Then Hondo (8 rings I think and top 5 for some years but probably not 12), Shaq (4 rings + more dominant) and Pippen (probably more like top 10 that long and 6 rings) come to mind as players just outside that criteria as well. Notice how many teammates are brought up with this?

More-Than-Most
02-07-2016, 04:55 AM
NO will not especially when it comes to FACTS

Ok hit me with some facts and tell me how the **** Drexler was better... Please make me a believer.

Jeffy25
02-07-2016, 06:14 AM
Wow, that's kinda high for a player who's career is not even finished. As it stands the highest I can put him is 9.

LeBron is 49th all-time already in career minutes played

He's played more minutes than Jerry West, Larry Bird, David Robinson, Elgin Baylor, and Walt Frazier

And he's played the 7th most playoff minutes all-time, more than Wilt, Magic, Jordan, etc.

He's played a lot of minutes already. He's about to catch Clyde and AI (this month possibly), and in two years he'll be top 20 all-time in minutes, he'll only be 33.



Kobe is in the 9-12 range for pretty much all objective fans. A few people may have him a tick higher because they value the chips and longevity more, but that doesn't seem objective unless you don't care about basketball before 1980. 12 might be on that lower end, but it's near the right spot for him.

bolts4ever
02-07-2016, 07:07 AM
Let's do the math!!!

Michael Jordan is regarded as the #1 player ever....

Kobe is regarded as the closest thing ever to Jordan and is outside the top 10???

Kobe's career is greater than Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Bird and I'd argue Duncan.

5 rings, 3rd all time scoring,
Think about this HE'S THE 3RD BEST GUARD EVER!!!!! #1Jordan #2Magic#3Kobe....

Ball_Out
02-07-2016, 01:22 PM
LeBron is 49th all-time already in career minutes played

He's played more minutes than Jerry West, Larry Bird, David Robinson, Elgin Baylor, and Walt Frazier

And he's played the 7th most playoff minutes all-time, more than Wilt, Magic, Jordan, etc.

He's played a lot of minutes already. He's about to catch Clyde and AI (this month possibly), and in two years he'll be top 20 all-time in minutes, he'll only be 33.



Kobe is in the 9-12 range for pretty much all objective fans. A few people may have him a tick higher because they value the chips and longevity more, but that doesn't seem objective unless you don't care about basketball before 1980. 12 might be on that lower end, but it's near the right spot for him.

Agree with this. Although there is no one in the current NBA that is above him, including Lebron.

KingJames6
02-07-2016, 02:32 PM
Just to get a feel for this forum, what are peoples' reasoning as to why Kobe Bryant is greater than Lebron James? Because championships is literally the only argument I can see, personally.

Kush McDaniels
02-07-2016, 03:04 PM
Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan all deserve to be higher than Kobe. They all had more to do with their team's success, and had more overall impact on the floor. Kobe gets extra love from his fans because of the rings, and the style of play he had. I don't put much stock into the mythical things like "he had the killer mentality" or "he's so clutch" because the clutchness is proved wrong by the numbers, and the killer mentality is selfish and bad for the team. A lot of Kobe's accolades are overrated too. He was not a consistently great defender, but yet he is known as a great defender for his entire career (won way too many 1st team defense awards). I acknowledge he's a top 8-12 player of all time - that's a huge accomplishment btw.

Chronz
02-07-2016, 03:08 PM
Why? They are saying peak Oscar > Kobe. If anything I can buy that more than a list that is based on resume. That is why Curry is so high. I think it is consistent.

I'd love for this to not be about ones resume but that ****s up the rest of the list even more, but you said "not based on resume", so its clear it wont be the strength of the argument but do we disregard it completely? Makes a slight difference as Big O tops out on some mediocre teams and his statistical production is no more impressive than Kobe's. Kobe's defense should put him ahead too, at least given his playoff performances. When they won their championships, Kobe played a greater role, both as its 2nd best player and its driving force. In terms of longevity Big O was prime from day 1 till about his Final Championship winning season, his peak run was considerably shorter (Id argue 64 as his best season), maybe ended the moment he stopped securing playoff spots for his team and saw his stats noticeably declined, about 29-30 and thats being pretty generous IMO. Kobe's longevity is tons greater here.


So assuming we ignore the chasm of a difference in team success (both as "the man" and its #2), ignore longevity gap, what are we left with, the notion that he was a better player? How often do we grant that distinction throughout history?

Consider Tmac vs Melo, what exactly has Melo done if we are not basing this on team success? Why is English ahead of Tmac if this isn't about longevity but about peak play when its such a shameful comparison? These inconsistencies are riddled all over but its a result of the voting process IMO. Fun exercise tho.


Big O could have had a greater peak but I could make a much better peak list than this, its just a question of how much you want to value everything else. Isn't a single peak season abit flukey? Is it a stretch of play? How long ?

JasonJohnHorn
02-07-2016, 06:06 PM
He definitely belongs ahead of a guy who averages a triple-double and perhaps the greatest center to ever play the game?

Not sure I agree with that.

You want to go by ring count, fine, but you watch what Hakeem did on D and then see how dominant he was on the offensive end.... there' not question that Hakeem belongs in the top ten.


As for the Big O

Russell won the rings.
Wilt Set the records.
Kareem broke the records.
All three say The Big O is the best player they ever played against.


I'm going with the Big O over Kobe too.

Corey
02-07-2016, 08:33 PM
I think 12 is pretty fair for Kobe. He could be argued anywhere between 9 and 15 in my opinion.

AIRMAR72
02-07-2016, 08:43 PM
shaq, hakeem, and duncan all deserve to be higher than kobe. They all had more to do with their team's success, and had more overall impact on the floor. Kobe gets extra love from his fans because of the rings, and the style of play he had. I don't put much stock into the mythical things like "he had the killer mentality" or "he's so clutch" because the clutchness is proved wrong by the numbers, and the killer mentality is selfish and bad for the team. A lot of kobe's accolades are overrated too. He was not a consistently great defender, but yet he is known as a great defender for his entire career (won way too many 1st team defense awards). I acknowledge he's a top 8-12 player of all time - that's a huge accomplishment btw. exactly

ink
02-08-2016, 12:51 AM
Let's do the math!!!

Michael Jordan is regarded as the #1 player ever....

Kobe is regarded as the closest thing ever to Jordan and is outside the top 10???

The best Elvis impersonator isn't automatically the next best artist.

Kobe belonged to a generation of ISO players who wanted to be like Mike. He was probably the best. But that doesn't mean he was an original, an innovator. So much of his game was borrowed from the very best of all time.

Look at Oscar, Lebron, Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. Each one an absolute original who infuenced the direction of the game.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 05:47 AM
As for the Big O

Russell won the rings.
Wilt Set the records.
Kareem broke the records.
All three say The Big O is the best player they ever played against.


Then there's Jerry West, the NBA's logo to this day, who also said that Oscar is the best player he's played against and one of the best he's seen ever.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 06:00 AM
Big O said:

Best player between him and Jerry West: Him. Jerry West actually agreed.
Who could guard him in his time: No one, despite some great defensive players being around.
Best players since him: Magic, Larry, Jordan
Best player ever, including himself: Elgin Baylor...

I've never seen anyone who was around till the 80s who hasn't called Elgin Baylor one of the best ever, top 5 caliber. Now he's like 20something and people are like "yeah, whatever.. but Kobe is not top 1-2-3-4-5???????????????ZOMG!!!"

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 08:57 AM
Agree with this. Although there is no one in the current NBA that is above him, including Lebron.

LeBron has very clearly passed Kobe all-time. He doesn't have to play another minute, his peak is significantly stronger

Ball_Out
02-08-2016, 09:15 AM
LeBron has very clearly passed Kobe all-time. He doesn't have to play another minute, his peak is significantly stronger
That's your opinion. Im of the opinion that kobe is a much better basketball player than LeBron and I would very comfortably choose kobe over lebron if I were starting a team.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 09:19 AM
That's your opinion. Im of the opinion that kobe is a much better basketball player than LeBron and I would very comfortably choose kobe over lebron if I were starting a team.

That's fine, I'll take LeBron and win more games with the same supporting cast.

Lebron distributes, rebounds better and can handle the key opponent offensive player.

LOb0
02-08-2016, 09:39 AM
That's your opinion. Im of the opinion that kobe is a much better basketball player than LeBron and I would very comfortably choose kobe over lebron if I were starting a team.

Its not really opinion. Kobe's highest PER in a single season was 27.97. LeBron has topped that 7 times. There is really no reason at all that anyone would take Kobe other then just being a fanboy.

Tony_Starks
02-08-2016, 10:40 AM
Not surprising.

It's actually surprising the haters let him be that high on the list.

Doesn't even matter at this point.

5x champ and this generations favorite most feared and respected icon is fine enough for me...

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 11:24 AM
Meh, 12 is acceptable, he is in my 8-11 tier, so I won't lose sleep over it.

Bostonjorge
02-08-2016, 11:28 AM
Putting Kobe at 12 is dig at Kobe. When you hear the reason behind the ranking it's a emotional one. They down play his all defensive team and all NBA teams. Having 1 MVP is a big deal to hurt him for some reason. They basically wanted to bash Kobe while trying to conceal it. Easy to see that.

No one takes these rankings serious anyways. Players, coaches and legends have put Kobe 7 slots higher in there rankings. They actually look at things people will remember like championship performances, points scored and winning.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 11:34 AM
Putting Kobe at 12 is dig at Kobe. When you hear the reason behind the ranking it's a emotional one. They down play his all defensive team and all NBA teams. Having 1 MVP is a big deal to hurt him for some reason. They basically wanted to bash Kobe while trying to conceal it. Easy to see that.

No one takes these rankings serious anyways. Players, coaches and legends have put Kobe 7 slots higher in there rankings. They actually look at things people will remember like championship performances, points scored and winning.

ehhhhh, not really.

MonroeFAN
02-08-2016, 11:37 AM
llullz !!


You remind me of this ADD riddled super annoying girl from back in high school.

Ball_Out
02-08-2016, 12:39 PM
Its not really opinion. Kobe's highest PER in a single season was 27.97. LeBron has topped that 7 times. There is really no reason at all that anyone would take Kobe other then just being a fanboy.
Lol. How arrogant of you to believe that your criteria for rating a player is shared by everyone.

cmellofan15
02-08-2016, 12:43 PM
he never said that..he stated that the fanboys are the obvious exceptions..has he been proven wrong in this instance? :shrug:

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 01:24 PM
Lol. How arrogant of you to believe that your criteria for rating a player is shared by everyone.

to be fair, any stat you bring up will favor LeBron. Like any of them, outside Kobe's pure scoring average a couple years, which were done much more inefficiently than LeBron's.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 01:58 PM
to be fair, any stat you bring up will favor LeBron. Like any of them, outside Kobe's pure scoring average a couple years, which were done much more inefficiently than LeBron's.

LeBron had a chance at top 3. he blew it by not being coached properly basically his entire career in Cleveland. and that epic choke job in the dallas finals.

but yea I have kobe probably 6. I don't consider shaq or hakeem to have had better careers then kobe and I cant put Duncan over kobe either because while both in their primes, both on great teams, I watched kobe destroy his teams many times while shaq was neutralized.

1. Jordan 2. kareem 3. Wilt 4. Russell 5. magic 6. kobe 7. bird 8. Duncan 9. hakeem. 10. shaq

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 03:08 PM
LeBron had a chance at top 3. he blew it by not being coached properly basically his entire career in Cleveland. and that epic choke job in the dallas finals.

but yea I have kobe probably 6. I don't consider shaq or hakeem to have had better careers then kobe and I cant put Duncan over kobe either because while both in their primes, both on great teams, I watched kobe destroy his teams many times while shaq was neutralized.

1. Jordan 2. kareem 3. Wilt 4. Russell 5. magic 6. kobe 7. bird 8. Duncan 9. hakeem. 10. shaq

Does nobody else find it ironic that Kobe was worse in the Finals against Indiana in 2000 than LeBron was against Dallas that year where everyone calls for the 'choke' job?

In the same breath people claim 5 chips for Kobe, but he basically was worthless in the 2000 Finals and Shaq carried that team....Shaq was the Finals MVP three times for a reason.

2000 Finals
Kobe - .367% FG, 15.6 PPG, 4.6 RBG, 4.2 APG .411 TS%, 9.7 average Game Score

2011 Finals
LeBron - .478% FG, 17.8 PPG, 7.2 RBG, 6.8 APG, .541 TS%, 13.7 average Game Score

People need to quit acting like that 2011 Finals defines LeBron's career or something, it doesn't. If he was playing with a prime Shaq in 2011 he wins that Finals.

It's silly, people need to be more objective.

Obviously LeBron has a stronger career than Kobe, it's basically only non-Laker fans and people that think Chips define a career that don't have him higher.


And to not have Shaq over Kobe is comical. Shaq is the reason Kobe has 5 chips (well 3 of those 5, he needed Gasol for the other 2).

Kobe destroyed teams while Shaq was neutralized? That happened how many times? A handful. Shaq was throwing up 30 PPG and 15 RBP and 30.0 PER for those Lakers teams. That's beyond elite production, that's all-time great. Kobe has never done anything like that.

KnicksorBust
02-08-2016, 03:22 PM
To be fair that list would not involve Kobe then and I have him in my top 10 all time because he was never top 5 in the league 12 of his career years... He was the best player in the league once and that is arguable because of Lebron in 06... He was top 5 a few times but not close to 12 times and sure as hell not consecutively

Give me your top 10 if you dont mind just out of curiosity.

2001-2013 he can definitely claim top 5 player every year.

#1.) MJ
#2.) KAJ
#3.) Magic
#4.) Duncan
#5.) Kobe
#6.) Russell
#7.) LeBron
#8.) Bird
#9.) Shaq
#10.) Wilt

KnicksorBust
02-08-2016, 03:27 PM
I mean do you want exactly that criteria or something close to it? If it's exactly you could start saying that with every player and their years as top x player with so many mvps, rings, FMVP's, or DPOY etc to make cut offs where only a couple people apply even if they have more of the other awards (plus I think you could argue Kobe not fitting top 5 12 years straight anyways).

I don't think my criteria are as arbitary as you make them out to be. It's not like I'm saying "Name another player who averaged 2spg and was all-defensive 1st team 3 times in a row, and scored 20ppg 4 times." :) Being an elite player for a dozen years is a small small group of players and Kobe is on that short list. I also value championships because that is what the sport is all about and the best players find ways to get it done. Kobe found ways to get it done more than most and that speaks to his greatness. That's why those two traits, longevity and success, make his career and legacy so impressive.


If not exactly what you said but very similar then 5 off the top of my head who fit that would be...

Russell
Jordan (breaks consecutive rule but not due to ability)
KAJ
Duncan
Magic

And that's my top 6 players of all-time.


Then Hondo (8 rings I think and top 5 for some years but probably not 12), Shaq (4 rings + more dominant) and Pippen (probably more like top 10 that long and 6 rings) come to mind as players just outside that criteria as well. Notice how many teammates are brought up with this?

We could debate Shaq if you want to roll up our sleeves and do it but you don't really think Hondo or Pippen should be above Kobe do you?

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 03:39 PM
2001-2013 he can definitely claim top 5 player every year.

#1.) MJ
#2.) KAJ
#3.) Magic
#4.) Duncan
#5.) Kobe
#6.) Russell
#7.) LeBron
#8.) Bird
#9.) Shaq
#10.) Wilt

From 01-13 he is 4th in Win Shares and 6th in PER.

He was a stable force over those years, but no doubt that Duncan and LeBron have been better and probably Dirk too.

From 01-13, he is top 5 in PER five times, and he is literally 5th 4 out of those 5 times (3rd in 05-06)

He is top 5 in Win Shares 4 times, 4th three of those times, 5th the other.

Top 5 in VORP three times (a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th)

Over 13 seasons, he is barely top 5 literally at most, five times. And never number 1 or 2.


It's only scoring where he was consistently top 5 in the league over these years, nothing else.

Considering he took the most field goal attempts 6 of these years, and the second most 3 of these years, it would only make sense that he would be.

He wasn't elite in any other facet. He shot a ton, that's really it.

With Jordan, LeBron, other all-time greats, you have them repeatedly showing up in the top 5 during their peak seasons in multiple categories, not Kobe.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 03:42 PM
Kobe is a lot like Jeter in baseball. He was never the best in the game, but he did throw together some seasons that edge in there around the top 5. But his durability really allowed him to reach the Hall of Fame, and being a part of many great teams really helped secure the championships. Both players would never have a ring in a smaller market that didn't bring talent to them. And neither were ever really MVP players or especially elite. But def were well above average for a very long time.

jerellh528
02-08-2016, 03:49 PM
From 01-13 he is 4th in Win Shares and 6th in PER.

He was a stable force over those years, but no doubt that Duncan and LeBron have been better and probably Dirk too.

From 01-13, he is top 5 in PER five times, and he is literally 5th 4 out of those 5 times (3rd in 05-06)

He is top 5 in Win Shares 4 times, 4th three of those times, 5th the other.

Top 5 in VORP three times (a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th)

Over 13 seasons, he is barely top 5 literally at most, five times. And never number 1 or 2.


It's only scoring where he was consistently top 5 in the league over these years, nothing else.

Considering he took the most field goal attempts 6 of these years, and the second most 3 of these years, it would only make sense that he would be.

He wasn't elite in any other facet. He shot a ton, that's really it.

With Jordan, LeBron, other all-time greats, you have them repeatedly showing up in the top 5 during their peak seasons in multiple categories, not Kobe.

Serious question, but do you even watch basketball? Or just like have Kobe's basketball reference page saved on your bookmarks? Not trying to be rude or anyhing, but just wondering if you actually watch the game at all? I know you're like a baseball guy and stuff and it definately shows from your posts. But how often do you watch basketball?

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 03:54 PM
Serious question, but do you even watch basketball? Or just like have Kobe's basketball reference page saved on your bookmarks? Not trying to be rude or anyhing, but just wondering if you actually watch the game at all? I know you're like a baseball guy and stuff and it definately shows from your posts. But how often do you watch basketball?

I watch the NBA when baseball is in it's off-season, but I tend to lose interest when April comes around.

I don't have a favorite team or favorite players. But I use the same methology when evaluating basketball as I do with baseball.

If it can be viewed, it can be measured
If it can be measured, it can be quantifiably assessed
If it can be quantifiably assessed, then it can be objectively comparative.

I watched basically all of Kobe's peak. I started watching the NBA in the early 90's, I really saw a lot of Jordan then. Kobe was a weaker version of Jordan. He was a great offensive threat and at times a great defensive threat. But I rarely saw him as a top 5 player in the league at any time. I saw him as a guy that took a lot of ill-advised shots for no good reason and as a guy that didn't work well with others. In my opinion, if Kobe could have learned to facilitate, he would have risen to the top 5 all-time. He didn't like to share the ball and it cost him a lot in efficiency. Tim Duncan and LeBron James have always been much better basketball players to me, and the statistics support those views, which makes it a slam-dunk to me. The eye test are supported by the stats.

jerellh528
02-08-2016, 04:01 PM
I watch the NBA when baseball is in it's off-season, but I tend to lose interest when April comes around.

I don't have a favorite team or favorite players. But I use the same methology when evaluating basketball as I do with baseball.

If it can be viewed, it can be measured
If it can be measured, it can be quantifiably assessed
If it can be quantifiably assessed, then it can be objectively comparative.

I watched basically all of Kobe's peak. I started watching the NBA in the early 90's, I really saw a lot of Jordan then. Kobe was a weaker version of Jordan. He was a great offensive threat and at times a great defensive threat. But I rarely saw him as a top 5 player in the league at any time. I saw him as a guy that took a lot of ill-advised shots for no good reason and as a guy that didn't work well with others. In my opinion, if Kobe could have learned to facilitate, he would have risen to the top 5 all-time. He didn't like to share the ball and it cost him a lot in efficiency. Tim Duncan and LeBron James have always been much better basketball players to me, and the statistics support those views, which makes it a slam-dunk to me. The eye test are supported by the stats.

Generally that's a sound methodology when you have controls. Far too many variables in sports like basketball or football. Don't know anything about baseball.

I would be curious to see your top 5 NBA players from 01-13 year by year. Not asking you, but it would be interesting to see if you had time to do it.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:02 PM
Does nobody else find it ironic that Kobe was worse in the Finals against Indiana in 2000 than LeBron was against Dallas that year where everyone calls for the 'choke' job?

In the same breath people claim 5 chips for Kobe, but he basically was worthless in the 2000 Finals and Shaq carried that team....Shaq was the Finals MVP three times for a reason.

2000 Finals
Kobe - .367% FG, 15.6 PPG, 4.6 RBG, 4.2 APG .411 TS%, 9.7 average Game Score

2011 Finals
LeBron - .478% FG, 17.8 PPG, 7.2 RBG, 6.8 APG, .541 TS%, 13.7 average Game Score

People need to quit acting like that 2011 Finals defines LeBron's career or something, it doesn't. If he was playing with a prime Shaq in 2011 he wins that Finals.

It's silly, people need to be more objective.

Obviously LeBron has a stronger career than Kobe, it's basically only non-Laker fans and people that think Chips define a career that don't have him higher.


And to not have Shaq over Kobe is comical. Shaq is the reason Kobe has 5 chips (well 3 of those 5, he needed Gasol for the other 2).

Kobe destroyed teams while Shaq was neutralized? That happened how many times? A handful. Shaq was throwing up 30 PPG and 15 RBP and 30.0 PER for those Lakers teams. That's beyond elite production, that's all-time great. Kobe has never done anything like that.

sir chokes a lot never surpassed kobe. and now that it looks like he's slowing down and likely wont win more chips, he never will.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:07 PM
sir chokes a lot never surpassed kobe. and now that it looks like he's slowing down and likely wont win more chips, he never will.

It's funny that you say LeBron is 'sir chokes a lot' when he is a better last second shooter and his teams have more success in the last seconds than Kobe has had. And didn't respond to the Finals information that I shared.

Can you share with us why you feel this way with information supporting your case?

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:10 PM
Generally that's a sound methodology when you have controls. Far too many variables in sports like basketball or football. Don't know anything about baseball.

I would be curious to see your top 5 NBA players from 01-13 year by year. Not asking you, but it would be interesting to see if you had time to do it.

I agree that basketball, hockey and football have lateral movements and players affect each other on the field/ice/court etc. Baseball is a lot easier to measure because there is so much one on one actions that it makes it rather easy. I can tell you who the better hitter is pretty easily because value offensively in baseball is so easy to measure.

To make that list, I would have to take some time to write it out. But I would imagine that Kobe would fall in the 4-7th range a lot, maybe top 3 a couple of times, maybe even outside of the top 7 a couple of times. In the end, Kobe's value is his durability while being a well above average all-star caliber player. I just don't really see him as an elite all-time guy. His best seasons aren't really in the all-time great ranks. Would anyone say he has a season that is one of the 50 best seasons of all-time by a player?

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:13 PM
It's funny that you say LeBron is 'sir chokes a lot' when he is a better last second shooter and his teams have more success in the last seconds than Kobe has had. And didn't respond to the Finals information that I shared.

Can you share with us why you feel this way with information supporting your case?

5/7...2/4.

That's your finals information response.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:16 PM
all you stat geeks that say ring count don't matter please explain to me how you don't have WILT as the best player ever over Jordan. someone who averaged 30/23/4 for his career. and who knows how many blocks being that they didn't track it.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 04:18 PM
all you stat geeks that say ring count don't matter please explain to me how you don't have WILT as the best player ever over Jordan. someone who averaged 30/23/4 for his career. and who knows how many blocks being that they didn't track it.

because stat heads know per game averages are meaningless...

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:20 PM
5/7...2/4.

That's your finals information response.

Except that's not an individual stat, that is a team stat

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:21 PM
all you stat geeks that say ring count don't matter please explain to me how you don't have WILT as the best player ever over Jordan. someone who averaged 30/23/4 for his career. and who knows how many blocks being that they didn't track it.

Wilt also played in the early days of the game when competition was much different.

If rings are all that matters, than Bill Russell is the best ever and Robert Horry is greater than Kobe.

Rings are a team accomplishment, not an individual one.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:24 PM
Except that's not an individual stat, that is a team stat

that's a "get it done when it matters stat."

you will never convince me that that dallas series by LeBron is not the most epic choke job by a superstar in his prime.. in finals history. he had no business losing to that team. while standing around watching dirk go ape ****.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:25 PM
that's a "get it done when it matters stat."

you will never convince me that that dallas series by LeBron is not the most epic choke job by a superstar in his prime.. in finals history. he had no business losing to that team. while standing around watching dirk go ape ****.

LeBron has better career Finals numbers than Kobe does....and better playoff numbers.

That's because this isn't an individual sport, this is a team sport.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:30 PM
Wilt also played in the early days of the game when competition was much different.

If rings are all that matters, than Bill Russell is the best ever and Robert Horry is greater than Kobe.

Rings are a team accomplishment, not an individual one.

not valid to say competition was different. he dominated who was put In front of him. Jordan competition was different as well, he was head and shoulders above every shooting guard in the league. just like Wilt was head and shoulders above every center except Russell of course.

Jordan put up 60 on boston, a team where clearly "the competition was different." I wont say why because ill sound racist haha. so don't downplay what wilt did because of who he played.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:35 PM
not valid to say competition was different. he dominated who was put In front of him. Jordan competition was different as well, he was head and shoulders above every shooting guard in the league. just like Wilt was head and shoulders above every center except Russell of course.

Jordan put up 60 on boston, a team where clearly "the competition was different." I wont say why because ill sound racist haha. so don't downplay what wilt did because of who he played.

Yes, but you can tell how much greater the differences in competition were.

Wilt spent the majority of his career in a 10 team league and matched up against the Celtics every year that had legendary players on every roster. The possibility of putting up elite numbers is just like Babe Ruth doing it in the MLB. There were literally less than half as many players in the league at the time.

You can adjust for this without an issue.

Kareem, West, and Wilt are all-time greats for certain. But it was a different kind of game then. Wilt wouldn't average 20+ boards today.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:37 PM
LeBron has better career Finals numbers than Kobe does....and better playoff numbers.

That's because this isn't an individual sport, this is a team sport.

except the only stat that matters. the W.

wilt has better playoff/finals averages then everyone. even though he lost many times. By your logic, wilt is the GOAT.

*drops mic*

Bostonjorge
02-08-2016, 04:38 PM
Does nobody else find it ironic that Kobe was worse in the Finals against Indiana in 2000 than LeBron was against Dallas that year where everyone calls for the 'choke' job?

In the same breath people claim 5 chips for Kobe, but he basically was worthless in the 2000 Finals and Shaq carried that team....Shaq was the Finals MVP three times for a reason.

2000 Finals
Kobe - .367% FG, 15.6 PPG, 4.6 RBG, 4.2 APG .411 TS%, 9.7 average Game Score

2011 Finals
LeBron - .478% FG, 17.8 PPG, 7.2 RBG, 6.8 APG, .541 TS%, 13.7 average Game Score

People need to quit acting like that 2011 Finals defines LeBron's career or something, it doesn't. If he was playing with a prime Shaq in 2011 he wins that Finals.

It's silly, people need to be more objective.

Obviously LeBron has a stronger career than Kobe, it's basically only non-Laker fans and people that think Chips define a career that don't have him higher.


And to not have Shaq over Kobe is comical. Shaq is the reason Kobe has 5 chips (well 3 of those 5, he needed Gasol for the other 2).

Kobe destroyed teams while Shaq was neutralized? That happened how many times? A handful. Shaq was throwing up 30 PPG and 15 RBP and 30.0 PER for those Lakers teams. That's beyond elite production, that's all-time great. Kobe has never done anything like that.

Kobe had one of the best finals performances in game 6. While being hurt he came up big in the clutch. So your he was "worthless" comment is worthless when Kobe 2000 finals performance is highly praised.

James on the other hand never gets any praise for that choke job. We keep hearing when he had a superstar teammate he would win. Well James had 2 in wade and bosh. Wade was playing like a MVP and Bosh was playing his best basketball. James choke job came from being a liability. Turning the ball over and not shooting in the fourth. He was strait shook and cost Miami a ring.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:40 PM
except the only stat that matters. the W.

wilt has better playoff/finals averages then everyone. even though he lost many times. By your logic, wilt is the GOAT.

*drops mic*
Than Bill Russell is the greatest of all time

Also *drops mic*

cmellofan15
02-08-2016, 04:40 PM
all you stat geeks that say ring count don't matter please explain to me how you don't have WILT as the best player ever over Jordan. someone who averaged 30/23/4 for his career. and who knows how many blocks being that they didn't track it.

because they aren't idiots and know how to contextualize the stats? idk maybe that could be the reason why. seems like you've got a pretty narrow view of how you rank and compare players so I don't think I should even be bothering.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:41 PM
Yes, but you can tell how much greater the differences in competition were.

Wilt spent the majority of his career in a 10 team league and matched up against the Celtics every year that had legendary players on every roster. The possibility of putting up elite numbers is just like Babe Ruth doing it in the MLB. There were literally less than half as many players in the league at the time.

You can adjust for this without an issue.

Kareem, West, and Wilt are all-time greats for certain. But it was a different kind of game then. Wilt wouldn't average 20+ boards today.

im pretty sure he could, who the hell is going to stop him in todays game. if andre Drummond, a vastly inferior player can average 15, im sure wilt can get 20.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:43 PM
Kobe had one of the best finals performances in game 6. While being hurt he came up big in the clutch. So your he was "worthless" comment is worthless when Kobe 2000 finals performance is highly praised.
He was 8 for 27, and if he had shot better earlier in the game, he wouldn't have had to bring the team back in the end. Shaq had 41 points and 12 boards in that game and kept the Lakers in it while Kobe was looking for his stroke.

LeBron literally posted a triple double in Game 5 in that series while shooting better than Kobe did in that Game 6, and his team still lost by 9.




James on the other hand never gets any praise for that choke job. We keep hearing when he had a superstar teammate he would win. Well James had 2 in wade and bosh. Wade was playing like a MVP and Bosh was playing his best basketball. James choke job came from being a liability. Turning the ball over and not shooting in the fourth. He was strait shook and cost Miami a ring.
Throwing a bunch of superstars together isn't how you win chips.

The Warriors are perfect for Curry, he doesn't need another superstar to be successful. Jordan's Bulls were perfect for him. He had good defensive help, good complimentary players, and great rebounders to pick up the slack on what Jordan wasn't elite at doing. Kobe had Shaq and Gasol, two big men that were perfect for him. Guys that could take attention away when it came time to scoring, and guys that could board and play interior defense for him.

Throwing three of the top 10 guys in the game together doesn't mean that team should just automatically win. If today you would put Durant, Curry, and Paul on the same team, I don't think they win a chip unless there are some great defensive big men on that team to help.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:43 PM
because they aren't idiots and know how to contextualize the stats? idk maybe that could be the reason why. seems like you've got a pretty narrow view of how you rank and compare players so I don't think I should even be bothering.

obviously they cant contextualize stats. being that brons extra assists and boards over kobe, means absolutely nothing in the win column.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:47 PM
Kobe had one of the best finals performances in game 6. While being hurt he came up big in the clutch. So your he was "worthless" comment is worthless when Kobe 2000 finals performance is highly praised.

James on the other hand never gets any praise for that choke job. We keep hearing when he had a superstar teammate he would win. Well James had 2 in wade and bosh. Wade was playing like a MVP and Bosh was playing his best basketball. James choke job came from being a liability. Turning the ball over and not shooting in the fourth. He was strait shook and cost Miami a ring.

don't tell them nothing. stat geeks ignore kobes heart and desire, even when injured. because they cant measure it with a number and because LeBron has none.

how convenient

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:49 PM
He was 8 for 27, and if he had shot better earlier in the game, he wouldn't have had to bring the team back in the end. Shaq had 41 points and 12 boards in that game and kept the Lakers in it while Kobe was looking for his stroke.

LeBron literally posted a triple double in Game 5 in that series while shooting better than Kobe did in that Game 6, and his team still lost by 9.




Throwing a bunch of superstars together isn't how you win chips.

The Warriors are perfect for Curry, he doesn't need another superstar to be successful. Jordan's Bulls were perfect for him. He had good defensive help, good complimentary players, and great rebounders to pick up the slack on what Jordan wasn't elite at doing. Kobe had Shaq and Gasol, two big men that were perfect for him. Guys that could take attention away when it came time to scoring, and guys that could board and play interior defense for him.

Throwing three of the top 10 guys in the game together doesn't mean that team should just automatically win. If today you would put Durant, Curry, and Paul on the same team, I don't think they win a chip unless there are some great defensive big men on that team to help.

crazy talk. Durant, curry, and paul would definitely win the chip, every time too. they have to much heart to stand around and do nothing when the game matters most.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:49 PM
don't tell them nothing. stat geeks ignore kobes heart and desire, even when injured. because they cant measure it with a number and because LeBron has none.

how convenient

Heart and desire only matter if it comes out in the output of production.

Otherwise, it's just nonsense and narratives.

Lakers2000
02-08-2016, 04:51 PM
12 is a decent ranking and he'll drop over time as other talent comes into the league. He'll always be the Jordan facsimile. Facsimiles are rarely remembered. He's practically forgotten and hasn't officially retired yet. Imagine 10-20 years from now with the talent this league produces.

LOL. 81 points says hi. He will not be forgotten.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 04:52 PM
crazy talk. Durant, curry, and paul would definitely win the chip, every time too. they have to much heart to stand around and do nothing when the game matters most.

You seem to think CP3 isn't capable of that

haha blake going to the mavs would be hilarious. and your right, kobe can tell PAU to put his big boy pants on as they advance to the western conference finals 3 years in a row, whereas CP3 has never done that in his entire career. (kobe gave pau high fives THO, and said wassup in Spanish. LOL)

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:55 PM
Than Bill Russell is the greatest of all time

Also *drops mic*

Russell Is interesting, because he has the stats and the finals victories. jordans will to win and heart, and how he would just break someones hopes and dreams cant be measured with a Number. I wonder how stat geeks feel about Jordan vs Russell.

jerellh528
02-08-2016, 04:57 PM
5/7...2/4.

That's your finals information response.

Except it's:

5/7 ...2/6 or

5-2...2-4

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:58 PM
You seem to think CP3 isn't capable of that

with KD and Curry?? please. cp3 is the 3rd best player on that team. he wont have the ball to choke when the game is on the line.

Bron was the BEST player on his team. im not even sure what your point is lol.

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 04:59 PM
Except it's:

5/7 ...2/6 or

5-2...2-4

your right. that's for correcting me. 2/6 looks waayyyyyy worse ROFL.

jerellh528
02-08-2016, 04:59 PM
LOL. 81 points says hi. He will not be forgotten.

I was wondering why that guy was trying to push the Kobe will be forgotten angle, then I looked at his history and saw he was a raps fan. I'm sure he wants that 81 dropped on his team forgotten lol

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 05:09 PM
except the only stat that matters. the W.

wilt has better playoff/finals averages then everyone. even though he lost many times. By your logic, wilt is the GOAT.

*drops mic*

you really don't factor in level of support at all when you rank an individual in a team sport? LeBron has been better across the board, for his career, both regular season and playoffs, than Kobe. That can't be proved wrong. If you want to measure athletes simply by winning, go watch tennis or arm wrestling

Jayb587
02-08-2016, 05:14 PM
you really don't factor in level of support at all when you rank an individual in a team sport? LeBron has been better across the board, for his career, both regular season and playoffs, than Kobe. That can't be proved wrong. If you want to measure athletes simply by winning, go watch tennis or arm wrestling

hes been better at losing. that's all ill ever agree with.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 05:36 PM
hes been better at losing. that's all ill ever agree with.

well, then you really don't understand stats, or basketball.

mngopher35
02-08-2016, 06:11 PM
I don't think my criteria are as arbitary as you make them out to be. It's not like I'm saying "Name another player who averaged 2spg and was all-defensive 1st team 3 times in a row, and scored 20ppg 4 times." :) Being an elite player for a dozen years is a small small group of players and Kobe is on that short list. I also value championships because that is what the sport is all about and the best players find ways to get it done. Kobe found ways to get it done more than most and that speaks to his greatness. That's why those two traits, longevity and success, make his career and legacy so impressive.

I agree longevity and success are important but my point is that the rest of your list most certainly doesn't follow the same criteria you just listed (even within only the top 10 you show). You list two qualifiers, one being a specific number player in era (top 5) for a specific time period (12 years). The next is a team award given out to the 15 or so player on the best team each year regardless of how good they are or how much they contributed (remember how I mentioned you would have majority of teammates very high/close to this criteria? this is the reason). So essentially you in no way are really looking for the best player (individually against peers or vs. others on the list) but instead want a great player for long time. You don't want the best players on championship teams (in which case Kobe goes from 5 down to 2 fmvps), you want anyone who has been on good teams. Put them together and your top 6 (or however long you use this method) is actually mostly showing us great players who have been extremely lucky with situations/teammates (pop, Phil, Lakers, Boston, playing with other highly rated greats). That is fine as long as you acknowledge that in discussions I guess as many people like to compare players ability, impact, longevity, awards all the way through and this method ignores most of that.



And that's my top 6 players of all-time.

Which is great but Russell (who has over double the rings and more years as a top 2 player than Kobe) is last despite crushing the criteria.



We could debate Shaq if you want to roll up our sleeves and do it but you don't really think Hondo or Pippen should be above Kobe do you?

No I don't think they are at that level, which is exactly my point. They are extremely close to making your lists (just need to expand one of the two qualifiers a bit to get these 3) even though they don't show up next on your top 10 lists (outside Shaq at 9).


I don't think your ranking of players is extremely off with what you posted, my issue was with the criteria you mentioned in that post. It would be a way to find great players on the most winning teams but there isn't really separation of the individual. For example I could use one qualifier of 4 MVP's (better than rings when judging individuals, look at the tops of each lists and you get all time greats here but a bunch of teammates with rings) which gives me Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Lebron. All arguably in the top 5 group as well just a different qualifier(s). The key is looking at it all and not just simplifying it to two qualifiers that are very arguable (one team accomplishment, another Kobe doesn't even fit). In 2005 Kobe played 66 games and wasn't at his own top level while players like Duncan/KG/Nash/Dirk/Tmac/Lebron were all great and played more while Shaq was still up there as well off the top of my head (Kobe wasn't top 20 in WS that season). We could go further into some years as well since I think it is debatable but he wasn't atop 5 player for the 04-05 season.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 06:15 PM
Kobe the "winner" who got special calls in 2002 against the Kings.

Do we count that chip when we know he shouldn't have even been in the finals?

mngopher35
02-08-2016, 06:24 PM
Kobe the "winner" who got special calls in 2002 against the Kings.

Do we count that chip when we know he shouldn't have even been in the finals?

Yes, they ended up winning so their title is legit (just like 06 Heat for example). Context like this (which imo would be weak) and so much more is why judging players off rings is ridiculous though. Even if you decide that needs to be the way it's done the only way to individualize it is to give one "ring" to best player on that team. Otherwise you will undoubtedly get the "Robert Horry" response and for good reason. The second you try and place context around it saying Robert Horry comparison is ridiculous (because of his talent level) you have to realize all the context you have been ignoring while just pushing rings.

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 06:27 PM
except the only stat that matters. the W.

wilt has better playoff/finals averages then everyone. even though he lost many times. By your logic, wilt is the GOAT.

*drops mic*

How do you determine the assignment of a ring to a player?

Best player on the team? How do you individualize the accomplishment?

jerellh528
02-08-2016, 06:55 PM
Let's do the math!!!

Michael Jordan is regarded as the #1 player ever....

Kobe is regarded as the closest thing ever to Jordan and is outside the top 10???

Kobe's career is greater than Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Bird and I'd argue Duncan.

5 rings, 3rd all time scoring,
Think about this HE'S THE 3RD BEST GUARD EVER!!!!! #1Jordan #2Magic#3Kobe....

Not saying Kobe is as good as Jordan, or 2nd best all time or anything, but I think it's funny how Kobe is always just the inefficient chucker, and Jordan is the greatest of all time, even though Kobe was the closest thing to Jordan in terms of mentality, skill, style, and mannerisms and the only thing that seperates the chucker from the goat is 0.018 of a ts%, including kobes last 3 years which has lowered his substantially probably. That's like what? A missed shot or 2 more per game, if that? I dunno.

FraziersKnicks
02-08-2016, 07:19 PM
Not saying Kobe is as good as Jordan, or 2nd best all time or anything, but I think it's funny how Kobe is always just the inefficient chucker, and Jordan is the greatest of all time, even though Kobe was the closest thing to Jordan in terms of mentality, skill, style, and mannerisms and the only thing that seperates the chucker from the goat is 0.018 of a ts%, including kobes last 3 years which has lowered his substantially probably. That's like what? A missed shot or 2 more per game, if that? I dunno.

Don't act like MJ's Wizards years didn't hurt his TS%...

If we compare MJ's Bulls years and Kobe's pre-achilles years:

Jordan: 58 TS%
Kobe: 55.5 TS%

Kobe only reached MJ's career TS% in one season (2005-06 when he had a 58 TS%). That 2.5% different is actually quite a lot in TS% terms.

Their career slashlines are quite obviously in MJ's favour (once again pre-Wiz and pre-injury for fairness).

Jordan: .505/.332/.838
Kobe: .454/.336/.838

The only thing that pulls their TS% closer is that Kobe attempted double the amount of three's MJ did (probably not a good thing at a 33.6% clip).

MJ was a CAREER 50% shooter before playing for the Wizards, Kobe has NEVER even cracked 47%. The guys aren't even close when it comes to efficiency. Exactly how Kobe isn't close to LeBron in terms of efficiency (and even PPG funnily enough! The one thing everyone assumes Kobe is better at... He isn't!)

KnicksorBust
02-08-2016, 07:56 PM
2001-2013 he can definitely claim top 5 player every year.

#1.) MJ
#2.) KAJ
#3.) Magic
#4.) Duncan
#5.) Kobe
#6.) Russell
#7.) LeBron
#8.) Bird
#9.) Shaq
#10.) Wilt

From 01-13 he is 4th in Win Shares and 6th in PER.

He was a stable force over those years, but no doubt that Duncan and LeBron have been better and probably Dirk too.

From 01-13, he is top 5 in PER five times, and he is literally 5th 4 out of those 5 times (3rd in 05-06)

He is top 5 in Win Shares 4 times, 4th three of those times, 5th the other.

Top 5 in VORP three times (a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th)

Over 13 seasons, he is barely top 5 literally at most, five times. And never number 1 or 2.


It's only scoring where he was consistently top 5 in the league over these years, nothing else.

Considering he took the most field goal attempts 6 of these years, and the second most 3 of these years, it would only make sense that he would be.

He wasn't elite in any other facet. He shot a ton, that's really it.

With Jordan, LeBron, other all-time greats, you have them repeatedly showing up in the top 5 during their peak seasons in multiple categories, not Kobe.

Then pick a season and name 10 players better than him in that specific season. Do this for 2 seasons and you may have something.

KnicksorBust
02-08-2016, 08:04 PM
I don't think my criteria are as arbitary as you make them out to be. It's not like I'm saying "Name another player who averaged 2spg and was all-defensive 1st team 3 times in a row, and scored 20ppg 4 times." :) Being an elite player for a dozen years is a small small group of players and Kobe is on that short list. I also value championships because that is what the sport is all about and the best players find ways to get it done. Kobe found ways to get it done more than most and that speaks to his greatness. That's why those two traits, longevity and success, make his career and legacy so impressive.

I agree longevity and success are important but my point is that the rest of your list most certainly doesn't follow the same criteria you just listed (even within only the top 10 you show). You list two qualifiers, one being a specific number player in era (top 5) for a specific time period (12 years). The next is a team award given out to the 15 or so player on the best team each year regardless of how good they are or how much they contributed (remember how I mentioned you would have majority of teammates very high/close to this criteria? this is the reason). So essentially you in no way are really looking for the best player (individually against peers or vs. others on the list) but instead want a great player for long time. You don't want the best players on championship teams (in which case Kobe goes from 5 down to 2 fmvps), you want anyone who has been on good teams. Put them together and your top 6 (or however long you use this method) is actually mostly showing us great players who have been extremely lucky with situations/teammates (pop, Phil, Lakers, Boston, playing with other highly rated greats). That is fine as long as you acknowledge that in discussions I guess as many people like to compare players ability, impact, longevity, awards all the way through and this method ignores most of that.



And that's my top 6 players of all-time.

Which is great but Russell (who has over double the rings and more years as a top 2 player than Kobe) is last despite crushing the criteria.



We could debate Shaq if you want to roll up our sleeves and do it but you don't really think Hondo or Pippen should be above Kobe do you?

No I don't think they are at that level, which is exactly my point. They are extremely close to making your lists (just need to expand one of the two qualifiers a bit to get these 3) even though they don't show up next on your top 10 lists (outside Shaq at 9).


I don't think your ranking of players is extremely off with what you posted, my issue was with the criteria you mentioned in that post. It would be a way to find great players on the most winning teams but there isn't really separation of the individual. For example I could use one qualifier of 4 MVP's (better than rings when judging individuals, look at the tops of each lists and you get all time greats here but a bunch of teammates with rings) which gives me Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Lebron. All arguably in the top 5 group as well just a different qualifier(s). The key is looking at it all and not just simplifying it to two qualifiers that are very arguable (one team accomplishment, another Kobe doesn't even fit). In 2005 Kobe played 66 games and wasn't at his own top level while players like Duncan/KG/Nash/Dirk/Tmac/Lebron were all great and played more while Shaq was still up there as well off the top of my head (Kobe wasn't top 20 in WS that season). We could go further into some years as well since I think it is debatable but he wasn't atop 5 player for the 04-05 season.

Good post. Don't want to waste a response from my phone. Will respond later.

AIRMAR72
02-08-2016, 08:27 PM
Kobe is a lot like Jeter in baseball. He was never the best in the game, but he did throw together some seasons that edge in there around the top 5. But his durability really allowed him to reach the Hall of Fame, and being a part of many great teams really helped secure the championships. Both players would never have a ring in a smaller market that didn't bring talent to them. And neither were ever really MVP players or especially elite. But def were well above average for a very long time. agree and I'm taking it to the bank and get my money...Kobe was NEVER great his fans will never understand Dirk is better player kobee is just more athletic but Dirk put the ball in the basket especially when it counts

AIRMAR72
02-08-2016, 08:38 PM
wilt also played in the early days of the game when competition was much different.

If rings are all that matters, than bill russell is the best ever and robert horry is greater than kobe.

Rings are a team accomplishment, not an individual one. right!!

Jeffy25
02-08-2016, 11:00 PM
Then pick a season and name 10 players better than him in that specific season. Do this for 2 seasons and you may have something.

Well I didn't say he was outside the top 10 in any given season. I just said he wasn't a top 5 player every season from 01-13....but I'll play ball.



2012-2013 LeBron, Durant, Paul, Wade, Melo, Duncan, Lopez, Parker, Westbrook, Chandler and Harden
2011-2012 LeBron, Paul, Wade, Durant, Love, Griffin, Rose, Howard, Westbrook, Bynum, Harden, Chandler
2009-2010 LeBron, Wade, Durant, Duncan, Bosh, Howard, Dirk, Paul, Gasol, Amare, Manu

I could probably do it again in 06-07, maybe 04-05, the rest of the years he's top 10.

He has an argument in these years for top 10, but he isn't top 5 for certain in these five seasons.



Not saying Kobe is as good as Jordan, or 2nd best all time or anything, but I think it's funny how Kobe is always just the inefficient chucker, and Jordan is the greatest of all time, even though Kobe was the closest thing to Jordan in terms of mentality, skill, style, and mannerisms and the only thing that seperates the chucker from the goat is 0.018 of a ts%, including kobes last 3 years which has lowered his substantially probably. That's like what? A missed shot or 2 more per game, if that? I dunno.

Frazier answered a lot of this already, but a few things.

Kobe is the closest thing to Jordan in the sense that his career more or less copied Jordan. There are other styles of play that can be valuable, such as centers, forwards and point guards. I don't think anyone won't call Kobe the second best SG ever.

As far as being closest to him in heart/style etc, that doesn't really matter much. It's just part of what makes Kobe the copy cat of Jordan's career.


Jordan was clearly more efficient. He shot like a forward while being a guard.

Frazier said this already, but to reshare.

Pre-Wizards, and Pre-Achillies.

TS
Jordan - .580
Kobe - .555

That .580 ties Jordan with LeBron and Dirk btw
.555 puts Kobe around Damian Lillard and Kyrie Irving and Byron Scott

Jordan's career PER with the Bulls was 29.1, Kobe has never had a season that high.

I know you argue that PER is affected by a players team, but Kobe had a variety of teams here. He played with an all-time great in Shaq, and played with an efficient PF in Gasol, and he was the one man show a few years too.

His best season PER was 05-06 when he had a 28.0. Jordan pretty rarely ever posted a season below that, and had 7 seasons above it, even LeBron has 7 seasons over that 28.0 PER, Shaq had 7 as well.

19 players in total have posted a 28.0 PER and 1800 minutes played.

Jordan, LeBron, and Shaq have 7, Wilt has 6, Kareem has 4, Wade and Robinson 3 each, 5 other guys twice, and the rest just once

Only 8 players have posted a 30.0 PER, Jordan and LeBron 4 times each, Wilt 3 times, Shaq twice, and Anthony Davis, Dwayne Wade, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady each once.

Jordan was exceptionally efficient in his play while shooting a lot. Bryant was more so than guys like AI, but he clearly shot a lot, and not as well as guys like Jordan and LeBron

He had a .454% before the Achillies injury. The only season LeBron shot that poorly was his rookie year, and the only seasons Jordan did was his two years in Washington and his shortened 94-95 campaign.

Kobe's best shooting season was 01-02, when he shot .469. LeBron has topped that every year except his rookie year, and Jordan has topped that 10 times.


Kobe isn't a bad player by any means, but he is well short of guys like Jordan and LeBron. His longevity while being above average is clearly his greatest asset.



Nobody else notices that LeBron scores more per game while taking the same number of shots per game as Kobe? While also being a better rebounder and distributor? The only argument for Kobe over LeBron is the team accomplishment of rings. Which is the most flawed argument you can make to defend an individual in such a team oriented sport.

bagwell368
02-08-2016, 11:10 PM
He's the closest to Jordan so why is he out of the top 10 asks a poster? He's closest because they are both SG's.

He's 9-10-11-12 depending on a variety of factors.

Jamiecballer
02-09-2016, 12:20 AM
What are your thoughts?! He definitly belongs ahead of Hakeem and Oscar. But then again it is ESPN
I have him somewhere between 10 and 15 so for once ESPN got something about right

IKnowHoops
02-09-2016, 01:18 AM
obviously they cant contextualize stats. being that brons extra assists and boards over kobe, means absolutely nothing in the win column.

But getting boards and assists help teams win games. Notice that when two teams play, the team with more assists and rebounds usually wins. You don't seem stupid, so you should just be better than that and not ignore the obvious and leave it at, "he lost so his rebounds and assist don't matter".

At the end of the day rebounds and assists help your team. If you win, then the assists and rebounds contributed to the win. If they loose, then the assists and rebounds contributed to not loosing by more.

If player A has better Raw stats and advanced stats than Player B, then player A outplayed player B. If player A's team looses and player B's team wins, then either player B had a better contribution from his teammates, or his team was just playing against a more inferior team.

But you have to realize, in no way did player B outplay player A just because his team won.

joedaheights
02-09-2016, 02:25 AM
What are your thoughts?! He definitly belongs ahead of Hakeem and Oscar. But then again it is ESPN

A few things here…

1. They better, and I mean BETTER not have Wilt Chamberlain above those players.

2. There are two ways I believe you have to rank players that are totally separate..

a) What happened.. what are their resumes. If one guy is a guy who might be very talented, but he didn't do as good as the other guy, then his resume is not there. That is true of Wilt, who is blindingly more talented than Tim Duncan, but turned in a resume far worse than Duncan's at the end of the day.

b) How talented are they. How good are they if you were in a draft room and couldn't see their NBA future, but just had to draft them based on film. If this is the case, sorry, but David Robinson would be picked before a few guys who had better careers than him, including Tim Duncan.

3) Oscar Robertson, always a player whom morons use by taking his triple double season and doing what I call, "taking the 'we don't know/we'll never know' card and maxing the hypothetical."

We know Jordan and O'neal and Russell won rings. We know they DID it. They have 6 rings or 3 rings or 11 rings.

What people like to do with Oscar is say, "no one could beat the team Russell played on, so, in my alternative universe I'm creating, since we'll never know, I'm going to say that if Russell had worse teammates, Oscar would have won 8 rings."

Or, when Kobe was 22 or with Curry now… if you had listened to Kobe myopic types back in 02, he was GOING to win 9 rings, maybe more. Curry? Might win 2, 4, maybe only 1… but to hear his fans tell it… crap, 9.

People need to stop putting Oscar ahead of players who led teams to RINGS unless you're saying, "what happened doesn't matter, only our perception of the players talent.." in which case Wilt is better than Duncan. And if you saw careers play out, you know Wilt is not better than Duncan. More talented? Sure. But players don't always play to their talents.

Kobe was better than Oscar, you can argue Kobe or Hakeem. He is NOT better than Duncan, Shaq or Lebron.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 04:45 AM
A few things here…

1. They better, and I mean BETTER not have Wilt Chamberlain above those players.

2. There are two ways I believe you have to rank players that are totally separate..

a) What happened.. what are their resumes. If one guy is a guy who might be very talented, but he didn't do as good as the other guy, then his resume is not there. That is true of Wilt, who is blindingly more talented than Tim Duncan, but turned in a resume far worse than Duncan's at the end of the day.

b) How talented are they. How good are they if you were in a draft room and couldn't see their NBA future, but just had to draft them based on film. If this is the case, sorry, but David Robinson would be picked before a few guys who had better careers than him, including Tim Duncan.

3) Oscar Robertson, always a player whom morons use by taking his triple double season and doing what I call, "taking the 'we don't know/we'll never know' card and maxing the hypothetical."

We know Jordan and O'neal and Russell won rings. We know they DID it. They have 6 rings or 3 rings or 11 rings.

What people like to do with Oscar is say, "no one could beat the team Russell played on, so, in my alternative universe I'm creating, since we'll never know, I'm going to say that if Russell had worse teammates, Oscar would have won 8 rings."

Or, when Kobe was 22 or with Curry now… if you had listened to Kobe myopic types back in 02, he was GOING to win 9 rings, maybe more. Curry? Might win 2, 4, maybe only 1… but to hear his fans tell it… crap, 9.

People need to stop putting Oscar ahead of players who led teams to RINGS unless you're saying, "what happened doesn't matter, only our perception of the players talent.." in which case Wilt is better than Duncan. And if you saw careers play out, you know Wilt is not better than Duncan. More talented? Sure. But players don't always play to their talents.

Kobe was better than Oscar, you can argue Kobe or Hakeem. He is NOT better than Duncan, Shaq or Lebron.

makes no sense when hakeem is better then shaq and LeBron.

hidalgo
02-09-2016, 05:08 AM
they put him right where he belongs, barely outside the top 10.

and espn is always on Kobe's jock, all the time talking about how great he is. whoever thinks they're agaisnt him hasn't been watchin. they drool over him enough to make me sick

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 06:42 AM
But getting boards and assists help teams win games. Notice that when two teams play, the team with more assists and rebounds usually wins. You don't seem stupid, so you should just be better than that and not ignore the obvious and leave it at, "he lost so his rebounds and assist don't matter".

At the end of the day rebounds and assists help your team. If you win, then the assists and rebounds contributed to the win. If they loose, then the assists and rebounds contributed to not loosing by more.

If player A has better Raw stats and advanced stats than Player B, then player A outplayed player B. If player A's team looses and player B's team wins, then either player B had a better contribution from his teammates, or his team was just playing against a more inferior team.

But you have to realize, in no way did player B outplay player A just because his team won.

no. the rebound just goes to someone else on the team. or the team scores in a way that doesn't require an assist. stats are not the end all. take this scenario for instance.

team A misses a shot. LeBron gets a defensive board so he can push the ball up the court. A rebound his teammate could easily have gotten. Lebron passes to kyrie for a layup. board and assist.

Team A misses a shot. Pau gets the board, kobe runs down floor to get in scoring position. pau passes to fisher, whom passes to kobe in the post. post up and bucket.

Same result but different roles, different positions. so again. the extra boards and assist never helped him pass kobe in the win column.

winning is the object of the game. only LeBron fans downplay the significance of it.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 06:48 AM
I cant wait to be able to say 2-7. when GS waxes cle in the finals AGAIN.

valade16
02-09-2016, 06:58 AM
I cant wait to be able to say 2-7. when GS waxes cle in the finals AGAIN.

At least he'll always be better than Jerry 1-8 West, Elgin 0-8 Baylor and Wilt 2-5 Chamberlain then...

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 09:35 AM
I cant wait to be able to say 2-7. when GS waxes cle in the finals AGAIN.

You do realize how completely useless a players finals record is and how little that means about the player?

But hey, that means he won the East Conf Finals more than Jordan....

You literally punish a guy for making it to the Finals

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 09:37 AM
no. the rebound just goes to someone else on the team. or the team scores in a way that doesn't require an assist. stats are not the end all. take this scenario for instance.

team A misses a shot. LeBron gets a defensive board so he can push the ball up the court. A rebound his teammate could easily have gotten. Lebron passes to kyrie for a layup. board and assist.

Team A misses a shot. Pau gets the board, kobe runs down floor to get in scoring position. pau passes to fisher, whom passes to kobe in the post. post up and bucket.

Same result but different roles, different positions. so again. the extra boards and assist never helped him pass kobe in the win column.

winning is the object of the game. only LeBron fans downplay the significance of it.

Both scenarios gave the team the ball and a basket.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 09:38 AM
makes no sense when hakeem is better then shaq and LeBron.

According to your previous logic Hakeem can't be better than Shaq because 5>2

At least be consistent when hating on players.

Jamiecballer
02-09-2016, 10:01 AM
Let's do the math!!!

Michael Jordan is regarded as the #1 player ever....

Kobe is regarded as the closest thing ever to Jordan and is outside the top 10???

Kobe's career is greater than Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Bird and I'd argue Duncan.

5 rings, 3rd all time scoring,
Think about this HE'S THE 3RD BEST GUARD EVER!!!!! #1Jordan #2Magic#3Kobe....

you understand there are 5 positions on the court right? then why does being "the 3rd best guard ever" guarantee being in the top 10. math fail.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 10:14 AM
I was wondering why that guy was trying to push the Kobe will be forgotten angle, then I looked at his history and saw he was a raps fan. I'm sure he wants that 81 dropped on his team forgotten lol

Even that 81 point game, you can watch the highlights and see Kobe take several 18+ foot jumpers that are just not smart shots. Just because they go in, they don't go in at a high enough frequency to justify them. And this is with the team down 15+. He started shooting in the 3rd quarter, got the Lakers the game, and then scored the last 20 or so points with a double digit lead. Def one of his better shooting nights, but come on. He def didn't need to score those last 20 points, the Lakers had the game won with 6:01 to go in the game, they had a double digit lead. During this time, he took the Lakers 8 of their last 10 field goal attempts (and he got like 7 free throws) of the game, all with a double digit lead.

Same thing happened in Wilt's 100 game, they forced the player the ball to see how many points they could get.

Most of Jordan's 50+ point games were OT games or close divisional rival games.

I can't find a single game where Jordan scored over 50 and he took 80% of his teams shots with them ahead by 10. In fact, I can't find a game where Jordan scored more than 50 and his team didn't win by more than 10. He would only shoot that much when the game was close and he had to.

That was an electric game, and Kobe brought the Lakers back in that game and they won because of him. No doubt. But he also completely compiled in that game well after it was over to get more points, something I can't find evidence of Jordan ever doing just to get more points in a game. He scored 69 in a game (his highest) and it, like his other 60+ games was an over-time game where shooting that much made sense to keep the team in the game, and playoff games.

When Klay Thompson scored 37 in the 3rd quarter last year, he sat the 4th quarter with 11 made three pointers. 2 more and he would have the record, and lord only knows how many points he could have scored. He literally didn't play the last 10 minutes of that game.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 10:23 AM
You do realize how completely useless a players finals record is and how little that means about the player?

But hey, that means he won the East Conf Finals more than Jordan....

You literally punish a guy for making it to the Finals

I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss it as you are, either. The conference disparity is at play here, and if we're going to laud LBJ as an epic winner/leader in commandeering some half-baked squads to the Finals, we also need to correctly recognize his/their overall failure in the biggest of stages. Jordan's squads going undefeated in the Finals with him always being the best player and correct Finals MVP is an important distinction in his legacy over the other All-Time Greats imo. It's not the end all, but it is absolutely relevant.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 10:41 AM
I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss it as you are, either. The conference disparity is at play here, and if we're going to laud LBJ as an epic winner/leader in commandeering some half-baked squads to the Finals, we also need to correctly recognize his/their overall failure in the biggest of stages. Jordan's squads going undefeated in the Finals with him always being the best player and correct Finals MVP is an important distinction in his legacy over the other All-Time Greats imo. It's not the end all, but it is absolutely relevant.

Personally, I think it's crap how far a player goes in the playoffs or how many rings they win.

This is a team game, and comparing a players number of rings to anothers is completely useless and arbitrary and I give it literally zero merit.

It requires a supporting cast (players that work well with each others skills), competition that the player can beat (Kemp and Payton and Malone and Stockton would have rings if it wasn't for Jordan playing in his prime at the same time, that's not their faults), and a variety of other factors like prime vs primes, age, durability, health, etc. Rings aren't a one on one argument, and this is way too much of a team sport.

Did anyone watch the Super Bowl Sunday? Is that Manning's ring or is it the Bronco's? Because they didn't win because of Manning. Brady won in 2014 because a defender made a big time interception.

Too much has to happen right for players to win a ring.

Kobe doesn't have his first three rings without Shaq, no way. He doesn't get any if he doesn't meet Shaq and Gasol in his career (and likely Phil Jackson). Think Jordan ever wins without Pippen by his side? Hard to imagine he could. LeBron needed big time talent, Magic and Bird too.

You can't win alone in the NBA. It's impossible, and when you factor in that every season is different, the evolution of the league, and remember that not all primes are going to match up (there are times where the league doesn't have a clear cut best team - what if the 96 Bulls were meeting this years Warriors right now?, one of those teams won't win a ring, does that make them worse?).

It's a completely brainless and not thought out argument to declare a number of chips by a player as a personal accolade.

Though, if people want to, then Kobe has at most 2 rings. If we are assigning a personal allocation to rings, then those first three belong to Shaq (well one might belong to the Kings) and are def not Kobe's, and the last two Gasol was an equal contributor on both of those teams.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 10:55 AM
It's brainless to speak to chips as the end all (as very few do; hence PSD and most posters not having Bill Russell in their top 10 All-Time), but it is equally brainless to dismiss them entirely. Playoff runs and Finals records have relevance. This is a star driven sport where one player can carry an entire organization and make or break a franchise. This is not baseball, where only a starting pitcher in their 1 out of 4 night has a comparable level of impact to an NBA superstar in-game. Or the NFL, where even a quarterback (who plays less than one half of the game on one side of the ball and is immediately removed from 50% of those plays after handing off the ball) does not approach the impact of an NBA player who is involved in every play that he is on the court (which is >2/3rds of the game).

The NBA is a team sport, but not in any way comparable to baseball or football. It's ridiculous to even mention them in an ancillary point.

valade16
02-09-2016, 11:26 AM
I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss it as you are, either. The conference disparity is at play here, and if we're going to laud LBJ as an epic winner/leader in commandeering some half-baked squads to the Finals, we also need to correctly recognize his/their overall failure in the biggest of stages. Jordan's squads going undefeated in the Finals with him always being the best player and correct Finals MVP is an important distinction in his legacy over the other All-Time Greats imo. It's not the end all, but it is absolutely relevant.


It's brainless to speak to chips as the end all (as very few do; hence PSD and most posters not having Bill Russell in their top 10 All-Time), but it is equally brainless to dismiss them entirely. Playoff runs and Finals records have relevance. This is a star driven sport where one player can carry an entire organization and make or break a franchise. This is not baseball, where only a starting pitcher in their 1 out of 4 night has a comparable level of impact to an NBA superstar in-game. Or the NFL, where even a quarterback (who plays less than one half of the game on one side of the ball and is immediately removed from 50% of those plays after handing off the ball) does not approach the impact of an NBA player who is involved in every play that he is on the court (which is >2/3rds of the game).

The NBA is a team sport, but not in any way comparable to baseball or football. It's ridiculous to even mention them in an ancillary point.

I agree completely. To an extent, rings and playoff success matters to a degree.

To compare it to baseball, having a top 10 player like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, etc. would be like a baseball player who was a pitcher who could pitch every game, but also played SS on defense and hit .300 with 30 Homers a year. There's just nobody in baseball that can even approach the impact of one superstar NBA player.

Looking at the consensus top 11 according to PSD (Magic, MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Duncan, Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem), teams with those players on them have won 43/59 Championships, or 72% of the time. And lest you think that's inflated because of Bill Russell, it's 31/46 after Russell's last title, which is still 67% of the time.

So between 2/3 and 3/4 of the time, a team with a Top 10 player all-time will win the Title. And looking at the teams who didn't have one of those players on them reveals it's mostly Top 20 players on those teams since 1980:

15 Warriors (Curry may possibly go down as Top 10 all-time)
11 Mavs (Dirk, a Top 20 player all-time)
08 Celtics (KG, a Top 20 player all-time with Pierce and Ray Allen)
04 Pistons
90 Pistons
89 Pistons
83 76ers (Moses and Dr. J, both Top 20 players all-time)

So perhaps the most accurate statement one could make about a team's title chances without a Top 20 player all-time on the team is if you're not Pistons, you won't win a title.

One simply cannot ignore such a strong correlation as it relates to superstar player and championships.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 11:58 AM
For sure ^And to that note, I'm not sure I've seen a player impact a game defensively more so than Ben Wallace in '04. He had All-Time level impact for a handful of seasons, despite being a sieve offensively other than rebounding.

But yeah, a historically great player in his prime is probably a greater indicator for success than anything else. The Celtics are incredibly well coached team with both offensive and defensive talents. Yet, they're not going to make a run, because their best player is simply not good enough to match another teams best player, and ultimately that makes a massive difference when all the chips are on the line.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 01:43 PM
According to your previous logic Hakeem can't be better than Shaq because 5>2

At least be consistent when hating on players.

I don't consider only rings. I consider all variables. In the case of Hakeem vs Shaq, Hakeem edges him out due to the head to head in the finals and just being the better skilled basketball player.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 01:50 PM
For sure ^And to that note, I'm not sure I've seen a player impact a game defensively more so than Ben Wallace in '04. He had All-Time level impact for a handful of seasons, despite being a sieve offensively other than rebounding.

But yeah, a historically great player in his prime is probably a greater indicator for success than anything else. The Celtics are incredibly well coached team with both offensive and defensive talents. Yet, they're not going to make a run, because their best player is simply not good enough to match another teams best player, and ultimately that makes a massive difference when all the chips are on the line.

You pretty much nailed it. There is no one guideline but post season success is definitely one of the biggest factors.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 01:54 PM
I don't consider only rings. I consider all variables. In the case of Hakeem vs Shaq, Hakeem edges him out due to the head to head in the finals and just being the better skilled basketball player.

When you include all variables, what about this one?

Shaq
23.7 PPG, 10.9 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.3 BPG, 42K minutes, 26.4 PER, .586 TS%, 181.7 Win Shares
A 10 year peak of
28.1 PPG, 11.9 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.5 BPG, 25K minutes, 29.1 PER, .584 TS%, 125.1 Win Shares where he earned three rings as the best player on his team

Hakeem
21.8 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG, 3.1 BPG, 44K minutes, 23.6 PER, .553 TS%, 162.8 Win Shares
A 9 year peak where he posted 24.6 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 2.8 APG, 3.6 BPG, in 31K minutes, 24.9 PER, .557 TS%, 123.8 Win Shares where he earned two rings as the best player on his team.


Shaq is clearly most valuable than Hakeem in both their entire careers and their peaks.


From my memory. Hakeem might have been better defensively and had more range. But nobody could stop Shaq if he had the ball within 6 feet of the goal. Shaq could figuratively carry your team and bring you back if you were down in a game. Hakeem was the dream. He was a highlight real, incredibly athletic for his size, very mobile, great post play, decent range for his size, etc. I love Hakeem, but Shaq was much more dominant.

Shaq is one of three players to post 7 30.0 PER season, along with Jordan and LeBron.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 01:59 PM
You pretty much nailed it. There is no one guideline but post season success is definitely one of the biggest factors.

LeBron James Post-season career numbers
28.2 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 6.7 APG in 7561 minutes with 27.4 PER, .565 TS%, 36.9 Win Shares

Kobe Bryant Post-season career numbers
25.6 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 4.7 APG in 8641 minutes with 22.4 PER, .541 TS%, 28.3 Win Shares

Michael Jordan Post-season career numbers
33.4 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 5.7 APG in 7474 minutes with 28.6 PER, .568 TS%, 39.8 Win Shares

I don't think you are being very consistent with your bias


Additionally, just for the sake of the other argument
Shaq
24.3 PPG, 11.6 RPG, 2.7 APG, 2.1 BP in 8098 minutes, 26.1 PER, .565 TS%, 31.1 Win Shares

Hakeem
25.9 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 3.3 BPG in 5749 minutes, 25.7 PER, .569 TS%, 22.6 Win Shares

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:01 PM
For sure ^And to that note, I'm not sure I've seen a player impact a game defensively more so than Ben Wallace in '04. He had All-Time level impact for a handful of seasons, despite being a sieve offensively other than rebounding.

But yeah, a historically great player in his prime is probably a greater indicator for success than anything else. The Celtics are incredibly well coached team with both offensive and defensive talents. Yet, they're not going to make a run, because their best player is simply not good enough to match another teams best player, and ultimately that makes a massive difference when all the chips are on the line.

I absolutely agree that when you compare the NBA to MLB or the NFL, that an individual will have more impact. But it's not enough to win the whole damn thing. You have to have help. No player has ever won a chip that didn't have a fellow contributor helping them that was at least an all-star caliber player.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 02:05 PM
When you include all variables, what about this one?

Shaq
23.7 PPG, 10.9 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.3 BPG, 42K minutes, 26.4 PER, .586 TS%, 181.7 Win Shares
A 10 year peak of
28.1 PPG, 11.9 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.5 BPG, 25K minutes, 29.1 PER, .584 TS%, 125.1 Win Shares where he earned three rings as the best player on his team

Hakeem
21.8 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG, 3.1 BPG, 44K minutes, 23.6 PER, .553 TS%, 162.8 Win Shares
A 9 year peak where he posted 24.6 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 2.8 APG, 3.6 BPG, in 31K minutes, 24.9 PER, .557 TS%, 123.8 Win Shares where he earned two rings as the best player on his team.


Shaq is clearly most valuable than Hakeem in both their entire careers and their peaks.


From my memory. Hakeem might have been better defensively and had more range. But nobody could stop Shaq if he had the ball within 6 feet of the goal. Shaq could figuratively carry your team and bring you back if you were down in a game. Hakeem was the dream. He was a highlight real, incredibly athletic for his size, very mobile, great post play, decent range for his size, etc. I love Hakeem, but Shaq was much more dominant.

Shaq is one of three players to post 7 30.0 PER season, along with Jordan and LeBron.

Too bad shaqs PER couldn't stop Hakeem from winning the finals.

Hakeem and Shaq are debatable. I enjoy skill and defense over brute force. I personally regard Hakeem as the better player. To each his own.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 02:06 PM
I absolutely agree that when you compare the NBA to MLB or the NFL, that an individual will have more impact. But it's not enough to win the whole damn thing. You have to have help. No player has ever won a chip that didn't have a fellow contributor helping them that was at least an all-star caliber player.

They all had help fool. Yet some of them still managed to not get it done. That's where they separate.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:08 PM
Too bad shaqs PER couldn't stop Hakeem in the finals.

Hakeem and Shaq are debatable. I enjoy skill and defense over brute force. I personally regard Hakeem as the better player. To each his own.

Are you talking about when Shaq was 22 and Hakeem was 32?

You expected 22 year old Shaq with 23 year old Penny to stop prime Hakeem?

I didn't

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 02:10 PM
Personally, I think it's crap how far a player goes in the playoffs or how many rings they win.

This is a team game, and comparing a players number of rings to anothers is completely useless and arbitrary and I give it literally zero merit.

It requires a supporting cast (players that work well with each others skills), competition that the player can beat (Kemp and Payton and Malone and Stockton would have rings if it wasn't for Jordan playing in his prime at the same time, that's not their faults), and a variety of other factors like prime vs primes, age, durability, health, etc. Rings aren't a one on one argument, and this is way too much of a team sport.

Did anyone watch the Super Bowl Sunday? Is that Manning's ring or is it the Bronco's? Because they didn't win because of Manning. Brady won in 2014 because a defender made a big time interception.

Too much has to happen right for players to win a ring.

Kobe doesn't have his first three rings without Shaq, no way. He doesn't get any if he doesn't meet Shaq and Gasol in his career (and likely Phil Jackson). Think Jordan ever wins without Pippen by his side? Hard to imagine he could. LeBron needed big time talent, Magic and Bird too.

You can't win alone in the NBA. It's impossible, and when you factor in that every season is different, the evolution of the league, and remember that not all primes are going to match up (there are times where the league doesn't have a clear cut best team - what if the 96 Bulls were meeting this years Warriors right now?, one of those teams won't win a ring, does that make them worse?).

It's a completely brainless and not thought out argument to declare a number of chips by a player as a personal accolade.

Though, if people want to, then Kobe has at most 2 rings. If we are assigning a personal allocation to rings, then those first three belong to Shaq (well one might belong to the Kings) and are def not Kobe's, and the last two Gasol was an equal contributor on both of those teams.

You are an absolute clown. Look at Kobe's averages in the playoffs/finals. And you're going to take away three of his rings? You are a joke.

Guys, Kobe only has 2 rings because Jeffy took them away.

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 02:11 PM
I absolutely agree that when you compare the NBA to MLB or the NFL, that an individual will have more impact. But it's not enough to win the whole damn thing. You have to have help. No player has ever won a chip that didn't have a fellow contributor helping them that was at least an all-star caliber player.

Actually Hakeem won it in the 93/94 season with a bunch of solid role players..

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 02:23 PM
You are an absolute clown. Look at Kobe's averages in the playoffs/finals. And you're going to take away three of his rings? You are a joke.

Guys, Kobe only has 2 rings because Jeffy took them away.

Nor does he take into account that the Lakers may have lost that series against the Pacers had Kobe not taken over in OT in game 4 with Shaq sitting on the bench because of foul troubles..

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:29 PM
They all had help fool. Yet some of them still managed to not get it done. That's where they separate.

Not all help is equal obviously

Kobe having Shaq is more helpful than LeBron having J.R. Smith (who took the second most field goal attempts in the Finals last year on the Cavs).

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 02:29 PM
You are an absolute clown. Look at Kobe's averages in the playoffs/finals. And you're going to take away three of his rings? You are a joke.

Guys, Kobe only has 2 rings because Jeffy took them away.

Kobe averaged like 22 ppg and 4.7 apg in the 4 finals next to Shaq on 41% shooting (and this is with arguably the most dominant force we have seen taking the defensive attention). If you start using rings you need to narrow it down to an individual at the very least in which case Shaq was the most dominant player on 3 of his titles while he was the other two (I believe that is where Jeffy was going).

For reference a 3rd year Wade had his 2nd highest playoff PER, highest WS/48, 3rd highest playoff ppg and won a finals MVP next to a declined Shaq who still garnered much attention but not the same as those laker days even.

ahh edited before my response, this was based on the initial post just saying finals

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:29 PM
You are an absolute clown. Look at Kobe's averages in the playoffs/finals. And you're going to take away three of his rings? You are a joke.

Guys, Kobe only has 2 rings because Jeffy took them away.

How do you qualify a ring for an individual? The best player on the team?

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:32 PM
Actually Hakeem won it in the 93/94 season with a bunch of solid role players..

That's literally the only season where a guy won a chip without a teammate posting a 18.0 PER btw.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 02:37 PM
That's literally the only season where a guy won a chip without a teammate posting a 18.0 PER btw.

since you're in the mood, care to check on the Dallas in 2011 in that respect?

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 02:40 PM
since you're in the mood, care to check on the Dallas in 2011 in that respect?

Jason Terry had like a 20 PER (at least), I remember looking that up before in a disscussion (his lift in play generally gets overlooked for that run imo).

EDIT: Based on his later post it appears he meant RS PER. I mentioned his playoff PER.

cmellofan15
02-09-2016, 02:42 PM
kobe's ranked higher than a lot of guys who played second fiddle for a majority of their rings :shrug:

tredigs
02-09-2016, 02:46 PM
That's literally the only season where a guy won a chip without a teammate posting a 18.0 PER btw.

That season, Duncan's '03 and Rick Barry's '75 are the "individual" runs, where one player took over the post-season entirely.

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 02:50 PM
That's literally the only season where a guy won a chip without a teammate posting a 18.0 PER btw.

Actually it's not..

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 02:54 PM
Nor does he take into account that the Lakers may have lost that series against the Pacers had Kobe not taken over in OT in game 4 with Shaq sitting on the bench because of foul troubles..

kobe is the most scrutinized all time great ever. its cool though, because I will defend him to the death, making sure these clowns remember who kobe is.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 02:55 PM
since you're in the mood, care to check on the Dallas in 2011 in that respect?

Tyson Chandler 18.4

And Shawn Marion was 17.0 and Jason Terry at 15.9 (above 15)

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 02:58 PM
1999 -2000 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 30.7 ppg 15.4 reb 3.1 ast

Kobe 21.1 ppg 4.5 reb 4.4 ast

2000-2001 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 30.4 ppg 15.4 reb 3.2 ast

Kobe 29.4 ppg 7.3 reb 6.1 ast

2001-2002 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 28.5 ppg 12.6 reb 2.8 ast

Kobe 26.6 ppg 5.8 reb 4.6 ast

You're going to take away 3 rings from a guy putting those playoff numbers, along with playing great defense? That's just foolish. Shaq was a beast, but they both needed each other to win those titles. Keep the hate coming. It's hilarious.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 03:00 PM
kobe is the most scrutinized all time great ever. its cool though, because I will defend him to the death, making sure these clowns remember who kobe is.

Nobody can forget the guy that forced his way to 81 points and rode Shaq's back for 3 rings while his fans claim he is the leader for 5 rings.

Again, I asked, and nobody has answered

How do you qualify a ring for an individual? The best player on the team?

valade16
02-09-2016, 03:03 PM
That season, Duncan's '03 and Rick Barry's '75 are the "individual" runs, where one player took over the post-season entirely.

Rick Barry's team is the most overlooked "one man wrecking crew" seasons.

It's right up there with Dirk's 11, Duncan's 03 and Hakeem's 94. His best teammate was a rookie Jamaal Wilkes. He actually averaged more PPG every round than the last one (2, 28, 29.5).

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 03:03 PM
Nobody can forget the guy that forced his way to 81 points and rode Shaq's back for 3 rings while his fans claim he is the leader for 5 rings.

Again, I asked, and nobody has answered

Lebron's rings don't count. He rigged a big 3 and turned the NBA into the WWE. So Lebron total rings = 0, Kobe total rings = 2. Dude, you are a clown.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 03:07 PM
1999 -2000 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 30.7 ppg 15.4 reb 3.1 ast

Kobe 21.1 ppg 4.5 reb 4.4 ast

2000-2001 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 30.4 ppg 15.4 reb 3.2 ast

Kobe 29.4 ppg 7.3 reb 6.1 ast

2001-2002 Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe)

Shaq 28.5 ppg 12.6 reb 2.8 ast

Kobe 26.6 ppg 5.8 reb 4.6 ast

You're going to take away 3 rings from a guy putting those playoff numbers, along with playing great defense? That's just foolish. Shaq was a beast, but they both needed each other to win those titles. Keep the hate coming. It's hilarious.

Then do you want to give LeBron some rings? Because he put up better numbers than those several times and didn't get a ring.....and that's because he didn't have a teammate dropping 30/15 a game for him taking all of the focus on offense.

Here are the number of times someone posted 30 points and 15 boards per game in the playoffs and reached the Finals since 1975 when the number of playoff teams were expended from 8 to 10:

Shaq - 00
Shaq - 01

Kareem did it a couple of times in the 70's under a smaller playoff format, and Elgin Baylor did it a few times in the 60's under an even smaller playoff format



When you have a center posting 30 points and 15 boards per game for the playoffs, you don't have to do a lot to get a ring, throwing up 40% field goal shooting while taking 20 shots per game, you'll get a ring and apparently, given the credit for the ring over the guy getting 30/15 for you.

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 03:12 PM
Then do you want to give LeBron some rings? Because he put up better numbers than those several times and didn't get a ring.....and that's because he didn't have a teammate dropping 30/15 a game for him taking all of the focus on offense.

Here are the number of times someone posted 30 points and 15 boards per game in the playoffs and reached the Finals since 1975 when the number of playoff teams were expended from 8 to 10:

Shaq - 00
Shaq - 01

Kareem did it a couple of times in the 70's under a smaller playoff format, and Elgin Baylor did it a few times in the 60's under an even smaller playoff format



When you have a center posting 30 points and 15 boards per game for the playoffs, you don't have to do a lot to get a ring, throwing up 40% field goal shooting while taking 20 shots per game, you'll get a ring and apparently, given the credit for the ring over the guy getting 30/15 for you.

Who's giving him credit for winning them by himself??

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 03:13 PM
Then do you want to give LeBron some rings? Because he put up better numbers than those several times and didn't get a ring.....and that's because he didn't have a teammate dropping 30/15 a game for him taking all of the focus on offense.

Here are the number of times someone posted 30 points and 15 boards per game in the playoffs and reached the Finals since 1975 when the number of playoff teams were expended from 8 to 10:

Shaq - 00
Shaq - 01

Kareem did it a couple of times in the 70's under a smaller playoff format, and Elgin Baylor did it a few times in the 60's under an even smaller playoff format



When you have a center posting 30 points and 15 boards per game for the playoffs, you don't have to do a lot to get a ring, throwing up 40% field goal shooting while taking 20 shots per game, you'll get a ring and apparently, given the credit for the ring over the guy getting 30/15 for you.

Who's giving Kobe the credit? You're in your own little Kobe hate filled world. They both deserve credit because they were both great. 40 percent? Talk about an exaggeration. It's funny to see you try to justify Kobe not playing a big role in them winning those finals

Those two players are the reason those Laker teams were great and they are both considered one of the best players ever for a reason. Keep sippin the haterate.

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 03:15 PM
Who's giving Kobe the credit? You're in your own little Kobe hate filled world. They both deserve credit because they were both great. 40 percent? Talk about an exaggeration. It's funny to see you try to justify Kobe not playing a big role in them winning those finals

Those two players are the reason those Laker teams were great and they are both considered one of the best players ever for a reason. Keep sippin the haterate.

I wouldn't worry about him.. He's a known troll and baiter..

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 03:16 PM
Nobody can forget the guy that forced his way to 81 points and rode Shaq's back for 3 rings while his fans claim he is the leader for 5 rings.

Again, I asked, and nobody has answered

lol man you are funny. only kobe would be scrutinized for scoring 81 points. please go rewatch that game on nbaTV and watch my boys greatness.

Kobe did work for the lakers on the way to those chips. he won 5 rings. there is no debate in that. A lot of people like to believe kobe would have never gotten rings without shaq. he made 3 finals without shaq, more then shaq made without him i might add and he won more chips then shaq won without him. And I have no doubts that if he played his entire career without shaq with teams built around him we would have seen him in the finals more than those 3 times. He was that good.

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 03:19 PM
lol man you are funny. only kobe would be scrutinized for scoring 81 points. please go rewatch that game on nbaTV and watch my boys greatness.

Kobe did work for the lakers on the way to those chips. he won 5 rings. there is no debate in that. A lot of people like to believe kobe would have never gotten rings without shaq. he made 3 finals without shaq, more then shaq made without him i might add and he won more chips then shaq won without him. And I have no doubts that if he played his entire career without shaq with teams built around him we would have seen him in the finals more than those 3 times. He was that good.

But but he had Pau too..

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 03:20 PM
While we're taking away rings, let's take away Curry's ring last year. He wasn't the finals MVP and shot 21 times per game in the playoffs. Trash Chucker.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 03:21 PM
But but he had Pau too..

so what clown. Jordan had pippen for all 6 of his rings. a better player then pau.

Should we take away all 6 of jordans rings too???

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 03:21 PM
While we're taking away rings, let's take away Curry's ring last year. He wasn't the finals MVP and shot 21 times per game in the playoffs. Trash Chucker.

lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 03:26 PM
so what clown. Jordan had pippen for all 6 of his rings. a better player then pau.

Should we take away all 6 of jordans rings too???

Dude I was being sarcastic.. Moron..

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 03:34 PM
Dude I was being sarcastic.. Moron..

oh lol. thought that was Jeffy who said that. my bad.

cmellofan15
02-09-2016, 03:36 PM
so what clown. Jordan had pippen for all 6 of his rings. a better player then pau.

Should we take away all 6 of jordans rings too???


Dude I was being sarcastic.. Moron..

now the lovers have turned against each other :catfight: WHAT NEXT?

FraziersKnicks
02-09-2016, 03:36 PM
Kobe fans getting so defensive they're even insulting people who are arguing for their boy :laugh2:

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 03:39 PM
Who's giving him credit for winning them by himself??

Not sure if you have been reading the thread or not but ring count has been the biggest thing brought up. In no way do they try and separate the individual from a team accomplishment so in fact people have been trying to give kobe the credit of a team ring despite not being the most impactful player on the team.


5/7...2/4.

That's your finals information response.

Example. This in no way discussed the individuals level of play or context behind this info. Kobe is being given credit for his teams accomplishments in comparison to another players team (who btw didn't spend his first 8 years next to prime shaq but instead Big Z).


obviously they cant contextualize stats. being that brons extra assists and boards over kobe, means absolutely nothing in the win column.

Another more extreme example where now an individuals impact/performance no longer matters unless you win more championships than the other guy. So in this case Kobe's numbers (which were easier to get due to the attention Shaq received) are not only valid but more meaningful due to that extra help. If you eliminate Shaq from the equation it is a totally different topic though so again his teammates+team success again being used to give Kobe individual credit over another player.


I can go on but you can just re-look through the thread and find multiple more posts with some similar ideas. Trying to put context into the argument isn't saying Kobe won by himself, it is to point out exactly the opposite in fact (players don't win by themselves, teams win championships). If you use rings as in individual accomplishment then the best player on those 3 teams was Shaq.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 03:40 PM
Kobe fans getting so defensive they're even insulting people who are arguing for their boy :laugh2:

This is getting so funny so fast.

They don't even know whose on whose side anymore

Tony_Starks
02-09-2016, 03:42 PM
You know whats going to be funny. When the next great player comes along and has like back to back 50 point games, then the stat pops up...oh wait, Kobe did this 4 straight games.

Or some awesome guy has the game of his life and drops 60, then the stat pops up OH snap...Kobe outdid this while sitting the entire 4th quarter.

Or some player gets really hot And averages 40 for a couple weeks then... Kobe did it for a month.

Or example Stephen Curry hits 11 threes the other night but wait who holds the record? You guessed it, Kobe with 12.

Point is who cares where they rank him, the rings and the ridiculous records speak for themselves.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 03:42 PM
This is getting so funny so fast.

They don't even know whose on whose side anymore

nah just thought it was you. doing too many things at once. sounded like something dumb you would type.

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 03:48 PM
This is getting so funny so fast.

They don't even know whose on whose side anymore

As ridiculous as that was, you're just the worst.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 03:51 PM
As ridiculous as that was, you're just the worst.

You guys have literally not answered the most basic questions asked, and get so defensive anytime a stat comes up that shows Kobe inferior in some way.

I also don't get the Shaq hate from Laker fans.

Gibby23
02-09-2016, 03:54 PM
Calm down guys. Jeffy just read up on a bunch of basketball stats and stuff. I don't think he actually knows the sport or watches many games.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:05 PM
Calm down guys. Jeffy just read up on a bunch of basketball stats and stuff. I don't think he actually knows the sport or watches many games.

Based on some of the posting habits, I have a feeling some of these posters weren't even alive during Kobe's and Shaq's 3 peat.

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 04:15 PM
Calm down guys. Jeffy just read up on a bunch of basketball stats and stuff. I don't think he actually knows the sport or watches many games.

While I too think he focuses too much on the stats he has brought way more to the table than those arguing with him. It's easier to just count rings than to look into the stats/impact, teammates, and context of winning which is what he is at least attempting to do. If you disagree with the stats and have a thought out response of what he is overlooking/missing go ahead but right now it seems like just (A FEW) kobe homers getting mad because most people rank Kobe appropriately (as evidenced by not even knowing who posted something but bashing solely because he thought it was Jeffy).

Gibby23
02-09-2016, 04:18 PM
Based on some of the posting habits, I have a feeling some of these posters weren't even alive during Kobe's and Shaq's 3 peat.

Lol. I keep forgetting that is was 16, 15, and 14 years ago. You might be right. Feels like yesterday. I was like 20, 21, and 22 then. Now I feel old.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:22 PM
Lol. I keep forgetting that is was 16, 15, and 14 years ago. You might be right. Feels like yesterday. I was like 20, 21, and 22 then. Now I feel old.

Yup.

I was born in 83. But it does feel like yesterday. Kobe and Jeter and repeating rings at that time, crazy

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:23 PM
So if they both deserve credit, why do people talk about getting rings as if it's an individual accomplishment on here?

If it's a mutual accomplishment, then it can't also be credited as an individual accomplishment.

Unless Pippen is greater than Kobe because he was important for those 6 rings.

You can't have it both ways.


Also, tone down the insults, I'm not insulting you. It just shows that you can't produce a civil, adult discussion

Who the **** is counting rings only?? Who is bashing Shaq?? I actually have him higher on my list than Kobe..

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:24 PM
Who the **** is counting rings only?? Who is bashing Shaq?? I actually have him higher on my list than Kobe..

Have you not read JayB's posts in this thread?

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:26 PM
This is getting so funny so fast.

They don't even know whose on whose side anymore

The only side I'm on is my own.. I don't give a **** about what someone else is saying..

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:27 PM
Have you not read JayB's posts in this thread?

Nope.. I could care less what he's saying..

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:29 PM
now the lovers have turned against each other :catfight: WHAT NEXT?

Clever..

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:30 PM
Nope.. I could care less what he's saying..

I'm sorry, but then why would you ask the question?

Several people have said Kobe > LeBron and then cited their Finals record as the only reasoning.

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 04:31 PM
Have you not read JayB's posts in this thread?

because I have kobe and hakeem ranked higher then shaq doesn't mean I hate him.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:32 PM
because I have kobe and hakeem ranked higher then shaq doesn't mean I hate him.

Of your many posts, those aren't the ones I was referring to

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:34 PM
I'm sorry, but then why would you ask the question?

Several people have said Kobe > LeBron and then cited their Finals record as the only reasoning.

Because you keep grouping me in with those posters..

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:35 PM
Because you keep grouping me in with those posters..

I never named you? Lol

lakerfan85
02-09-2016, 04:37 PM
This is getting so funny so fast.

They don't even know whose on whose side anymore

You did here..

Jayb587
02-09-2016, 04:41 PM
I'm sorry, but then why would you ask the question?

Several people have said Kobe > LeBron and then cited their Finals record as the only reasoning.

finals record is not the only reason. Kobes, heart, passion, skill, desire, knowledge of the game are other reasons.

The fact that kobe can play different styles, such as facilitator with shaq, and then go to scorer without shaq. while LeBron knows one style of play. 1on1, drive and kick. Its one of the reasons he has problems with the greatest teams. Cle runs no plays, no offensive system, and that's lebrons fault for being a know it all and wanting to do everything, and for wanting all these yes men as his head coach. kobe has defeated the most 50 win teams in playoff history, because he can adjust to the competition. while LeBron struggles with these types of teams.

Lebron needs help and direction in playing the best competition where he cant use his athletiscm to dominate the game. But he doesn't want it. and it held him back, and its why he hasn't had as much success as kobe.

Lebron had the most success with wade who is smart and was the leader of the team, wade and riley held brons ego in check and gave him guidance on the court to be the best player he can be. Then he went to CLE only to forget what he learned and revert to 1on1, drive and kick all over again, and take over a franchise to the likes that we have never seen before. Watch that embarrassing GSW warrior game and you will see exactly what Im talking about.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:43 PM
You did here..

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you really anywhere, I was referring to Jay and Hangin....but this is off-topic at this point. I know you don't count rings only, we've discussed in the past I believe.

Hangin n Wangin
02-09-2016, 04:46 PM
Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you really anywhere, I was referring to Jay and Hangin....but this is off-topic at this point. I know you don't count rings only, we've discussed in the past I believe.

I'm not the one that insulted the other Laker fan. So how could you be referring to me? Do you even know what you're talking about?

The answer is no.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 04:56 PM
finals record is not the only reason. Kobes, heart, passion, skill, desire, knowledge of the game are other reasons.
But what does any of that matter if it doesn't translate to on the court success?

Kobe won more games, but also had better talent with him when he did win. And when he was alone, those Laker teams were really really bad. LeBron has never posted a season like the 06-07 Lakers, and when he was a kid in Cleveland he had worse help than Kobe did on that team.

You can't just credit Kobe with passion and heart and say that's why he has five rings, ignore that he has rings because he played with arguably the most dominant center during his prime (or one of) who posted historical numbers in the post-season and with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, guys that were perfect for Kobe in his prime, and then completely ignore when Kobe didn't have help and how horrible the Lakers performed.

If you want to take the LeBron vs Kobe argument head on, and ignore the statistics that each player has produced and say he has heart and guts and that's why he has more rings.....then you have to also be able to answer to the gigantic holes in that logic when it comes to things like the contributions of Shaq and his Finals MVP's on those years, and how bad the Lakers were when Kobe didn't have enough help.

You can't have it both ways.



The fact that kobe can play different styles, such as facilitator with shaq,
He was a facilitator with Shaq?

The most assists per game he ever had with Shaq was 5.9. Just for a reference, LeBron has never had that few assists per game except his rookie season when he literally had 5.9 per game.

If you want to say Kobe played facilitator and he should be given credit for it, then you need to recognize that LeBron does it better.


and then go to scorer without shaq.
Which he also did worse than LeBron


while LeBron knows one style of play. 1on1, drive and kick.
Both players have played a lot of ISO in their careers. and LeBron has shown to be better at it.

While also being a better defender (can take on the opponents best offensive player), rebounder, and facilitator.


Its one of the reasons he has problems with the greatest teams. Cle runs no plays, no offensive system, and that's lebrons fault for being a know it all and wanting to do everything, and for wanting all these yes men as his head coach.
If you want to argue that, then that's a coaching problem, maybe LeBron needs Phil Jackson? That's not LeBron's fault, he doesn't hire the coach.

LeBron has taken a lot less talent to the Finals than Kobe ever has. This past year, the team mate in the Finals that took the second most shots was J.R. Smith, Kobe has never had that weak of support and made it to the Finals. When Kobe had that sort of support, he barely posted a .500 season.


kobe has defeated the most 50 win teams in playoff history, because he can adjust to the competition.

You mean Kobe, along with Pau and Shaq.


while LeBron struggles with these types of teams.

I don't know LeBron's exact W-L against 50 win teams in the playoffs and I don't have the time to look it up. But I imagine it's not as paltry as you are making it sound.


Lebron needs help and direction in playing the best competition where he cant use his athletiscm to dominate the game. But he doesn't want it. and it held him back, and its why he hasn't had as much success as kobe.

Or has he not had as much support as Kobe has had?

I think LeBron takes too many jump shots and I see holes in his game, absolutely. But head to head, he is clearly more dominating and better than Kobe.


Lebron had the most success with wade who is smart and was the leader of the team, wade and riley held brons ego in check and gave him guidance on the court to be the best player he can be.
If you want to give credit here, then why do you call the 11 Finals a choke job?

Again, the contradictions.

Every argument that you give for Kobe > LeBron is a narrative, and not objective. It's a personal opinion.



Then he went to CLE only to forget what he learned and revert to 1on1, drive and kick all over again,
And got back to the Finals with no help only to lose to a team that may win the most games in a single season ever this year.

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 05:30 PM
finals record is not the only reason. Kobes, heart, passion, skill, desire, knowledge of the game are other reasons.

3 of those are simply your perception (for example with all that heart/passion/desire why would Kobe not show up as big in elimination games throughout his career?), Kobe is more skilled, and IQ is arguable. Shaq has played with both and called Lebron the highest bball IQ player he had ever played with though so I wouldn't say it is guaranteed in Kobe's favor here. On top of this I think it was some low IQ shots/plays throughout games that overall caused his efficiency to be at a clearly lower level although we could discuss the reasons further.


The fact that kobe can play different styles, such as facilitator with shaq, and then go to scorer without shaq. while LeBron knows one style of play. 1on1, drive and kick. Its one of the reasons he has problems with the greatest teams. Cle runs no plays, no offensive system, and that's lebrons fault for being a know it all and wanting to do everything, and for wanting all these yes men as his head coach. kobe has defeated the most 50 win teams in playoff history, because he can adjust to the competition. while LeBron struggles with these types of teams.

Interesting how a player widely considered one of the most versatile and do it all type of wings ever is now incapable of different styles. I do agree that he uses the Lebron ball strategy too much but many times you have to consider the lack of help he has had when doing so many times (Mo williams/Anthony Parker/Hickson/Bigz or 37yo Shaq isn't the supporting cast that normally generates a top 10 offense but did due to that method). Kobe has 9 playoff games with 10+ assists to Lebrons 25. Kobe has 88 playoff games of over 30 points (39 0ver 50%) to Lebron's 80 (44 over 50%). 14 games of 10+ rebounds for Kobe and 63 for Lebron. Lastly Lebron has been voted top 2 in DPOY and was arguably the most important defensive piece for the Heat on their title teams which Kobe has not done. While Kobe has spent most of his time in the triangle with talent Lebron has spent much more time without it and used his style more to compensate for that lack of coaching/talent. When he went to Miami we saw in 2011 that it didn't work just switching off between Wade/Lebron doing that so Spo actually spent all off season creating an offense to get Lebron off ball and have more movement instead. With a solid system and talent around him Lebron then put up 3 amazing seasons winning the title 2 times. To me that shows he is clearly capable of playing within other systems when the talent/coaching is there to implement it.


Lebron needs help and direction in playing the best competition where he cant use his athletiscm to dominate the game. But he doesn't want it. and it held him back, and its why he hasn't had as much success as kobe.

Interesting thought but I would guess when it comes to winning that the biggest difference of their careers is starting on (arguably) the most storied franchise in history and being paired with the most dominant force we have ever seen + Jackson compared to starting next to Big Z for an organization that has yet to win 34+ games since 1998 without Lebron. Context is huge. Without those years in a far better situation Kobe doesn't have more success, and since he wasn't even the most important factor to the success I think that has to be the main difference.


Lebron had the most success with wade who is smart and was the leader of the team, wade and riley held brons ego in check and gave him guidance on the court to be the best player he can be. Then he went to CLE only to forget what he learned and revert to 1on1, drive and kick all over again, and take over a franchise to the likes that we have never seen before. Watch that embarrassing GSW warrior game and you will see exactly what Im talking about.

Except he didn't have that success immediately and did once he was the clear on court leader. They played the switch off who runs the offense game that first year and only after creating a system (aka less Lebron/Wade ball, more movement and spacing) were able to win a title. It was a structured offense + talent surrounding him which is something Kobe has benefited from a majority of his career and they won the following 2/3 rings. Sure he was still able to play his game as well but that isn't any different than with Kobe in the triangle doing the same.

I will say I like the thought out post much more than your initial ones in the thread though!

Tony_Starks
02-09-2016, 05:38 PM
This went Kobe v Lebron in record time.

Good job guys!
( sarcastic)

JJ_JKidd
02-09-2016, 09:25 PM
What are your thoughts?! He definitly belongs ahead of Hakeem and Oscar. But then again it is ESPN

Lebron? Oh come on. Wait, BSPN dkcridin on James I remember now.

Hawkeye15
02-10-2016, 04:52 PM
This went Kobe v Lebron in record time.

Good job guys!
( sarcastic)

what a fresh new idea for conversation!

Tony_Starks
02-10-2016, 05:19 PM
This went Kobe v Lebron in record time.

Good job guys!
( sarcastic)

what a fresh new idea for conversation!

Lol.

I think when they start the Kobe Lebron madness from now on I'm just going to derail by talking about how I still believe OJ is innocent!

Hawkeye15
02-11-2016, 05:44 PM
Lol.

I think when they start the Kobe Lebron madness from now on I'm just going to derail by talking about how I still believe OJ is innocent!

you and I can just side argue the **** out of that to derail. Whatever obscure topic you pick, I go the other way

jerellh528
02-11-2016, 05:49 PM
Lol.

I think when they start the Kobe Lebron madness from now on I'm just going to derail by talking about how I still believe OJ is innocent!

He was guilty, everyone knows that