Highest possible rank for Kobe

[MadDog]

Inverse of the LeBron thread. Kobe was obviously a GOAT-tier competitor with five-star skill. What I think hurts him though is his finals play. There were a number of games Kobe was either bailed out, or shot his teams out of. Looking at his career in totality, I don't see anything better than 6 or 7.

[Axe]

8th. Anything higher than that is a bit laughable.

[HoopsNY]

Inverse of the LeBron thread. Kobe was obviously a GOAT-tier competitor with five-star skill. What I think hurts him though is his finals play. There were a number of games Kobe was either bailed out, or shot his teams out of. Looking at his career in totality, I don't see anything better than 6 or 7.

He has both playoffs and finals woes, as well as erratic shooting which at times was uncalled for. This doesn't mean that his high volume shooting wasn't necessitated, but he didn't always take the best shots.

I don't have him in my top 10, though I can understand why many put him there. There would have to be legitimate reasons as to why one would put him above other top 10 players. If he is 6th or 7th, then who does he replace and why?

[MadDog]

He has both playoffs and finals woes, as well as erratic shooting which at times was uncalled for. This doesn't mean that his high volume shooting wasn't necessitated, but he didn't always take the best shots.

I don't have him in my top 10, though I can understand why many put him there. There would have to be legitimate reasons as to why one would put him above other top 10 players. If he is 6th or 7th, then who does he replace and why?

I wouldn't put him there. Kobe's probably in that tier with Bird, Duncan & Hakeem. If I were to put him 7, it would have to be over Duncan, Bird, Hakeem and/or Russell. Over Duncan because Kobe frequently beat his teams in the playoffs - and had great numbers throughout. Bird because of his lack of longevity. Hakeem because of Kobe's career accomplishments. Russell because his lack of skill and the fact he only dominated one side of the ball (Magic did as well, but I also believe Magic was the better player).

Again, I wouldn't make those arguments - but they're the only ones I could think of lol

[HoopsNY]

I wouldn't put him there. Kobe's probably in that tier with Bird, Duncan & Hakeem. If I were to put him 7, it would have to be over Duncan, Bird, Hakeem and/or Russell. Over Duncan because Kobe frequently beat his teams in the playoffs - and had great numbers throughout. Bird because of his lack of longevity. Hakeem because of Kobe's career accomplishments. Russell because his lack of skill and the fact he only dominated one side of the ball (Magic did as well, but I also believe Magic was the better player).

Again, I wouldn't make those arguments - but they're the only ones I could think of lol

Kobe is 1-1 against Duncan post-Shaq. In the regular season since that time until Kobe retired, the Lakers were 9-18 against SA.

It's tough to put him above Bird for a number of reasons. Bird was the better shooter, passer, rebounder, and better help defender. Kobe was the better scorer (not by much) and a better man defender. Bird was also a better leader.

But Bird's three straight MVPs comes in the greatest era of the NBA, so that alone is significant and should be considered. He also has just as many FMVPs.

I don't have an argument in putting him above Shaq when Shaq won all 3 finals FMVPs and played significantly better than Kobe in the 2004 finals.

Russell is an interesting case, but leadership, being a better defender, and being a player-coach in the winning side of things definitely stands out.

Hakeem was just such a great two way player - better than Kobe even, and suffered from the demise of his franchise. Imagine you put Hakeem at PF and Shaq at center? How many titles does that yield with Hakeem's mid-range game? Yikes.

[MadDog]

Kobe is 1-1 against Duncan post-Shaq. In the regular season since that time until Kobe retired, the Lakers were 9-18 against SA.

It's tough to put him above Bird for a number of reasons. Bird was the better shooter, passer, rebounder, and better help defender. Kobe was the better scorer (not by much) and a better man defender. Bird was also a better leader.

But Bird's three straight MVPs comes in the greatest era of the NBA, so that alone is significant and should be considered. He also has just as many FMVPs.

I don't have an argument in putting him above Shaq when Shaq won all 3 finals FMVPs and played significantly better than Kobe in the 2004 finals.

Russell is an interesting case, but leadership, being a better defender, and being a player-coach in the winning side of things definitely stands out.

Hakeem was just such a great two way player - better than Kobe even, and suffered from the demise of his franchise. Imagine you put Hakeem at PF and Shaq at center? How many titles does that yield with Hakeem's mid-range game? Yikes.

Post Shaq, Kobe was actually 1-0 against Duncan. Unless you're grouping 2013 in there, but even then Kobe didn't play. The "argument" I presented was surface level. I could go more in-depth although its not really worth it. Ultimately, I would still say those players were greater than Kobe. For the reasons you laid out, and because of his so-so finals play.

[Rysio]

Kobe had goat ability but not the strongest career and stats yet still I can see him ranked above anyone except Jordan.

[Manny98]

Anywhere from 3-11 is fair

Tier 1

Jordan
Kareem


Tier 2

Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Hakeem

[LAL]

Kobe is 1-1 against Duncan post-Shaq. In the regular season since that time until Kobe retired, the Lakers were 9-18 against SA.

It's tough to put him above Bird for a number of reasons. Bird was the better shooter, passer, rebounder, and better help defender. Kobe was the better scorer (not by much) and a better man defender. Bird was also a better leader.

But Bird's three straight MVPs comes in the greatest era of the NBA, so that alone is significant and should be considered. He also has just as many FMVPs.

I don't have an argument in putting him above Shaq when Shaq won all 3 finals FMVPs and played significantly better than Kobe in the 2004 finals.

Russell is an interesting case, but leadership, being a better defender, and being a player-coach in the winning side of things definitely stands out.

Hakeem was just such a great two way player - better than Kobe even, and suffered from the demise of his franchise. Imagine you put Hakeem at PF and Shaq at center? How many titles does that yield with Hakeem's mid-range game? Yikes.

Lol. You're so cheap :oldlol:

[RRR3]

Anywhere from 3-11 is fair

Tier 1

Jordan
Kareem


Tier 2

Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Hakeem
Yikes he’s gone full retard folks.

[LAL]

Yikes he’s gone full retard folks.

Who tf do you think lebron is? Are you good at basketball? This isn't realgm you communist faggg :cheers:

[Manny98]

Yikes he’s gone full retard folks.

Your hate for Kobe is sad and ridiculous

[RRR3]

Your hate for Kobe is sad and ridiculous
Saying Kobe has no case for top 3 is reality, not hating.

[Manny98]

Saying Kobe has no case for top 3 is reality, not hating.

Who's opinion should we value more

NBA legends who have played against the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world on a nightly basis who all consider Kobe to be top 5 maybe even top 3

Or some skinny fat dweeb on the internet who's probably never touched a basketball in his entire life :facepalm

[LAL]

Who's opinion should we value more

NBA legends who have played against the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world on a nightly basis who all consider Kobe to be top 5 maybe even top 3

Or some skinny fat dweeb on the internet who's probably never touched a basketball in his entire life :facepalm

faGGG3 about to look up your family.

[RRR3]

Who's opinion should we value more

NBA legends who have played against the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world on a nightly basis who all consider Kobe to be top 5 maybe even top 3

Or some skinny fat dweeb on the internet who's probably never touched a basketball in his entire life :facepalm
Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and you’ll notice none of the best GMs are former players. Teams are increasingly hiring analytic-driven people because players tend to have dumb emotional opinions like you. I’m not sure why I should care what players think. Tons of them think Iverson is top 10.

Not sure how I can be skinny and fat at the same time but you are known for your stupidity after all.

[Phoenix]

MJ, Kareem, Lebron, Russell, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Wilt. I don't think he has a case over any of them.

I would take Hakeem as a better peak two way player as well but it starts getting a little trickier at this point, along with Duncan. I don't think you could rank him any higher than 8th but he could just as easily be nudged out of the top 10 depending on how you're ranking.

[LeCola]

3.

[8Ball]

10th

[Lebron23]

8th. Lack of MVP and Finals MVP disqualify him for being top 5-7.

[coin24]

Kobe is 5-7 range. He’s above Shaq and Duncan

[90sgoat]

Skill wise, Kobe is up there with the best of them, except maybe MJ and Bird.

He wasn't quite the athlete of MJ, Barkley, Shaq, Wilt etc, so that will keep him back.

What really detracts from Kobe was his shot selection, he just took too many bad shots, which makes his stats look worse than they should have been, because make no mistake, Kobe was a truly amazing scorer and basketball savant.

People today claim Durant is some amazing player, best scorer etc, but Kobe could do everything Durant could, just better, but was also a good passer and a die hard leader.

MJ, Bird, Kareem, Magic.

Who were all extremely skilled, but also made better decisions.

So my highest for Kobe is the 5 spot, but generally I would have him around 7 or so.

Above Shaq, but usually below Duncan.

[Manny98]

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and you’ll notice none of the best GMs are former players. Teams are increasingly hiring analytic-driven people because players tend to have dumb emotional opinions like you. I’m not sure why I should care what players think. Tons of them think Iverson is top 10.

Not sure how I can be skinny and fat at the same time but you are known for your stupidity after all.
No, players tend to know a bit more about the ins and outs of what makes an great player, you know because they actually play the sport unlike your dweeb ass

[StrongLurk]

Highest I could rank Kobe is 5th all time.

[8Ball]

Skill wise, Kobe is up there with the best of them, except maybe MJ and Bird.

He wasn't quite the athlete of MJ, Barkley, Shaq, Wilt etc, so that will keep him back.

What really detracts from Kobe was his shot selection, he just took too many bad shots, which makes his stats look worse than they should have been, because make no mistake, Kobe was a truly amazing scorer and basketball savant.

People today claim Durant is some amazing player, best scorer etc, but Kobe could do everything Durant could, just better, but was also a good passer and a die hard leader.

MJ, Bird, Kareem, Magic.

Who were all extremely skilled, but also made better decisions.

So my highest for Kobe is the 5 spot, but generally I would have him around 7 or so.

Above Shaq, but usually below Duncan.

You said in another thread kobe had a better peak than Bran.


Name me the finals series where kobe peaked higher than Bron.

[ELITEpower23]

1 MVP
2 FMVP
Zero memorable Finals
Terrible efficiency

Sheesh, I guess top 10 at best?

12 is his rightful spot

[Phoenix]

Skill wise, Kobe is up there with the best of them, except maybe MJ and Bird.

He wasn't quite the athlete of MJ, Barkley, Shaq, Wilt etc, so that will keep him back.

What really detracts from Kobe was his shot selection, he just took too many bad shots, which makes his stats look worse than they should have been, because make no mistake, Kobe was a truly amazing scorer and basketball savant.

People today claim Durant is some amazing player, best scorer etc, but Kobe could do everything Durant could, just better, but was also a good passer and a die hard leader.

MJ, Bird, Kareem, Magic.

Who were all extremely skilled, but also made better decisions.

So my highest for Kobe is the 5 spot, but generally I would have him around 7 or so.

Above Shaq, but usually below Duncan.

Kobe was a better ( regular season) streak scorer based on available evidence but he wasn't the overall shooter Durant is. Durant's length just gives him too many advantages to get clean looks on whoever is guarding him, while Kobe didn't have those same advantages and needed more footwork/guile to get shots off.

I'd actually love to see Durant on a mediocre team where he could shot jack 22-25 shots a game but he's never played on a team where the offensive talent was low enough for him to do so. Dude went from Westbrook to Curry/Klay to Harden/Kyrie. His series against the Bucks this past year gave us a glimpse into what KD is actually capable of when you take away his offensive help.

[90sgoat]

You said in another thread kobe had a better peak than Bran.


Name me the finals series where kobe peaked higher than Bron.

With Peak I mean like a 3-5 year period and I think Kobe during his 3 finals series with Lakers was more impressive than Lebron with his 3 finals series with Miami.

[90sgoat]

Kobe was a better streak scorer based on available evidence but he wasn't the overall shooter Durant is. Durant's length just gives him too many advantages to get clean looks on whoever is guarding him, while Kobe didn't have those same advantages and needed more footwork/guile to get shots off.

I'd actually love to see Durant on a mediocre team where he could shot jack 22-25 shots a game but he's never played on a team where the offensive talent was low enough for him to do so. Dude went from Westbrook to Curry/Klay to Harden/Kyrie. His series against the Bucks this past year gave us a glimpse into what KD is actually capable of when you take away his offensive help.

Durant is a better shooter if you allow him his spots, if you allow him to carry the ball, if you disallow physical defense, if you blow the whistle all the time.

Durant is not a better shooter than Kobe if they played during the 00s where defense was still allowed.

[Manny98]

Kobe was a better streak scorer based on available evidence but he wasn't the overall shooter Durant is. Durant's length just gives him too many advantages to get clean looks on whoever is guarding him, while Kobe didn't have those same advantages and needed more footwork/guile to get shots off.

I'd actually love to see Durant on a mediocre team where he could shot jack 22-25 shots a game but he's never played on a team where the offensive talent was low enough for him to do so. Dude went from Westbrook to Curry/Klay to Harden/Kyrie. His series against the Bucks this past year gave us a glimpse into what KD is actually capable of when you take away his offensive help.
We saw a glimpse of that in his MVP year because Westbrook was out half the season

He was absolutely insane in that stretch, averaged like 35 a game and they went 24-11 in that stretch

[Phoenix]

Durant is a better shooter if you allow him his spots, if you allow him to carry the ball, if you disallow physical defense, if you blow the whistle all the time.

Durant is not a better shooter than Kobe if they played during the 00s where defense was still allowed.

Durant averaged 30 in 2010 on 61% TS in the same era Kobe was getting his numbers, and this is YEARS before his prime. Any version of Durant from 2014 to now is very capable of dropping Kobe's volume but with better efficiency. Yes he was more prone to being affected by physical defense but the reality is, he can just rise up on you and rip it without being bothered by too many defenders, so he doesn't always have to 'get to his spots' to get off a shot.

[90sgoat]

Durant averaged 30 in 2010 on 61% TS in the same era Kobe was getting his numbers, and this is YEARS before his prime. Any version of Durant from 2014 to now is very capable of dropping Kobe's volume but with better efficiency. Yes he was more prone to being affected by physical defense but the reality is, he can just rise up on you and rip it without being bothered by too many defenders, so he doesn't always have to 'get to his spots' to get off a shot.

From 2012 to 2014 in 3 playoffs Durant averaged 29.4ppg on 44/32/84 with 4.3apg.

That's just not as good as Kobe, that's worse and with less assists and with less steals.

That's the thing, Durant doesn't have the arsenal of moves that Kobe had. When forced to be the focal point and under pressure, his shot efficiency goes down.

Consider that Durant is supposed to be one of the greatest scorers and shooters of all time and Kobe has him beat still.

[TheCorporation]

12.

The answer is always twelve


https://i.postimg.cc/qqpZ95dS/12be-lol.jpg

[Phoenix]

From 2012 to 2014 in 3 playoffs Durant averaged 29.4ppg on 44/32/84 with 4.3apg.

That's just not as good as Kobe, that's worse and with less assists and with less steals.

That's the thing, Durant doesn't have the arsenal of moves that Kobe had. When forced to be the focal point and under pressure, his shot efficiency goes down.

Consider that Durant is supposed to be one of the greatest scorers and shooters of all time and Kobe has him beat still.

Kobes prime has a number of playoff series where he shot under par. I'm on my phone but if you want to pick out specific periods to make your point I'll do the same as soon as I get back to my PC.

Durant doesnt have to have all the moves to be a better scorer. How you put the ball in the bucket doesn't earn you extra points. Hakeem was a more skilled scorer than Shaq but not a better one, peak for peak. Thing is though, I never said Durant was a definitely better scorer. I said he was a better shooter and I stand by that regardless of the era. If you want to say Kobe was 5he more skilled in terms of variety of moves sure, Kobe is among the most skilled ever from that aspect. I said shooter, and that goes to Durant.

Durant's also a much better finals performer, starting from his first one in 2012 dropping 30/55% on peak Lebron. And before you say Durant had Curry and Klay to take defensive pressure away, Kobe's first 4 finals he had Shaq. But Kobe wasnt at his peak is the likely reply, right? Neither was Durant in 2012-2014. He was just barely grazing his prime in 2014.

[TheCorporation]

I guess this still needs to be reposted as a light slap on the hand

LeBron's 2018 playoff run alone was better than all of the peaks from any of Kobe's 20-year playoffs

https://i.postimg.cc/QtTcRFL4/FB_IMG_1528921326607.jpg

[deathawaitu]

General consensus people have Kobe highest at number 5 and lowest at 8

[TheCorporation]

General consensus people have Kobe highest at number 5 and lowest at 8

*12.

The answer is always twelve


https://i.postimg.cc/qqpZ95dS/12be-lol.jpg

[RRR3]

No, players tend to know a bit more about the ins and outs of what makes an great player, you know because they actually play the sport unlike your dweeb ass
There’s quite a long history players being ass at talent evaluation. Can’t wait to hear your argument for why Iverson is top 10.

[3ba11]

#2 obviously

MJ and Kobe invented the footwork needed to produce a lot in the triangle, which turned the 60-year losing offense into an 11-time champion..

That's goat

[HoopsNY]

Post Shaq, Kobe was actually 1-0 against Duncan. Unless you're grouping 2013 in there, but even then Kobe didn't play. The "argument" I presented was surface level. I could go more in-depth although its not really worth it. Ultimately, I would still say those players were greater than Kobe. For the reasons you laid out, and because of his so-so finals play.

You're right; my bad. Still and all though, I think there are some things that need to be considered. For one, the 2004 series was with a stacked Lakers team, and that shot from Fisher should not have counted. SA would have been up 3-2 with a much better chance to win that series.

Duncan's 2003 title comes as a GOAT run, including beating Shaq/Kobe. They lost in 2002 with a team that was worse than the 2003 team. They lost in 2001, but that was an all-time great LA team, so Kobe gets the point for that one. In 2000, there were many saying if Duncan wasn't injured, then the Spurs advance further into the playoffs and could have challenged LA. After all, Duncan and co beat Shaq/Kobe/Rice in 1999.

[Phoenix]

You're right; my bad. Still and all though, I think there are some things that need to be considered. For one, the 2004 series was with a stacked Lakers team, and that shot from Fisher should not have counted. SA would have been up 3-2 with a much better chance to win that series.

Duncan's 2003 title comes as a GOAT run, including beating Shaq/Kobe. They lost in 2002 with a team that was worse than the 2003 team. They lost in 2001, but that was an all-time great LA team, so Kobe gets the point for that one. In 2000, there were many saying if Duncan wasn't injured, then the Spurs advance further into the playoffs and could have challenged LA. After all, Duncan and co beat Shaq/Kobe/Rice in 1999.

Challenge but I feel like LA still takes that series in 6. You simply weren't ****ing with Shaq in 2000 and Kobe was a year better in 2000 than 99.

[HoopsNY]

Kobes prime has a number of playoff series where he shot under par. I'm on my phone but if you want to pick out specific periods to make your point I'll do the same as soon as I get back to my PC.

Durant doesnt have to have all the moves to be a better scorer. How you put the ball in the bucket doesn't earn you extra points. Hakeem was a more skilled scorer than Shaq but not a better one, peak for peak. Thing is though, I never said Durant was a definitely better scorer. I said he was a better shooter and I stand by that regardless of the era. If you want to say Kobe was 5he more skilled in terms of variety of moves sure, Kobe is among the most skilled ever from that aspect. I said shooter, and that goes to Durant.

Durant's also a much better finals performer, starting from his first one in 2012 dropping 30/55% on peak Lebron. And before you say Durant had Curry and Klay to take defensive pressure away, Kobe's first 4 finals he had Shaq. But Kobe wasnt at his peak is the likely reply, right? Neither was Durant in 2012-2014. He was just barely grazing his prime in 2014.

Not to make this into a Hakeem vs. Shaq debate, but how true is it that Shaq was in fact a better scorer than Hakeem peak for peak? We know that Shaq lived off of inferior big men and utilized his size against them, in an era that saw the demise of the center, whereas for Hakeem, it was the opposite.

Consider Shaq's peak vs. Hakeem's in the playoffs:

Shaq '00-'02: 30 PPG | 55% FGs | 53% FTH

Hakeem '94-'95: 31 PPG | 53% FGs | 74% FTH

Shaq has more decisive numbers in the finals, but consider the centers he faced vs. peak Hakeem who faced prime Ewing and Shaq.

[HoopsNY]

Challenge but I feel like LA still takes that series in 6. You simply weren't ****ing with Shaq in 2000 and Kobe was a year better in 2000 than 99.

Yea, I can see why you say that, but Portland had a great defense and Sabonis and co. held Shaq to 26 PPG on 53% in the WCF. What's the combination of Duncan and Robinson doing in that situation?

[Phoenix]

Yea, I can see why you say that, but Portland had a great defense and Sabonis and co. held Shaq to 26 PPG on 53% in the WCF. What's the combination of Duncan and Robinson doing in that situation?

In 2001 Shaq dropped 27/13/54% on those two in a sweep ( Kobe played out of his mind as well). I would expect something in that range in 2000. The reason it would go to 6 IMO is because 2000 Kobe < 2001 Kobe.


Not to make this into a Hakeem vs. Shaq debate, but how true is it that Shaq was in fact a better scorer than Hakeem peak for peak? We know that Shaq lived off of inferior big men and utilized his size against them, in an era that saw the demise of the center, whereas for Hakeem, it was the opposite.

Consider Shaq's peak vs. Hakeem's in the playoffs:

Shaq '00-'02: 30 PPG | 55% FGs | 53% FTH

Hakeem '94-'95: 31 PPG | 53% FGs | 74% FTH

Shaq has more decisive numbers in the finals, but consider the centers he faced vs. peak Hakeem who faced prime Ewing and Shaq.

Hakeem was facing individually better centers ( including young Shaq) but you could argue that Shaq was facing better overall frontlines. Duncan/Robinson frontline, Sabonis/Wallace, Divac/Webber. To my memory Hakeem was abusing Robinson on single coverage, I don't recall Rodman having much to do with that. The reality is, Shaq was so dominant inside 5 feet that you were using your entire frontline's worth of fouls just to put him on the line, or it was an easy two. 2000 Shaq, in 1995, is dropping numbers as well. Hell, Shaq in 95 against Hakeem was dropping 29ppg/57% taking 40 less shots than Hakeem did, and he was well off from his peak. The degree to which Hakeem 'outplayed' Shaq in that series is a bit overblown, it was moreso the Rockets supporting cast outplaying the young Magic team than the Hakeem/Shaq matchup. The Magic never recovered from the Nick Anderson meltdown or it's likely a much closer series.

Also, Shaq was dropping those numbers while having Kobe in 2001 and 2002 dropping 25-30. If you stick that version of Kobe on the 94 and 95 Rockets Hakeem wouldn't have those scoring numbers( volume-wise anyway). He wouldn't need to in that case.

[ELITEpower23]

I guess this still needs to be reposted as a light slap on the hand

LeBron's 2018 playoff run alone was better than all of the peaks from any of Kobe's 20-year playoffs

https://i.postimg.cc/QtTcRFL4/FB_IMG_1528921326607.jpg


*12.

The answer is always twelve


https://i.postimg.cc/qqpZ95dS/12be-lol.jpg

It's over now. Thanks Corp :cheers:

[MadDog]

You're right; my bad. Still and all though, I think there are some things that need to be considered. For one, the 2004 series was with a stacked Lakers team, and that shot from Fisher should not have counted. SA would have been up 3-2 with a much better chance to win that series.

Duncan's 2003 title comes as a GOAT run, including beating Shaq/Kobe. They lost in 2002 with a team that was worse than the 2003 team. They lost in 2001, but that was an all-time great LA team, so Kobe gets the point for that one. In 2000, there were many saying if Duncan wasn't injured, then the Spurs advance further into the playoffs and could have challenged LA. After all, Duncan and co beat Shaq/Kobe/Rice in 1999.

I don't view the 2004 Lakers as stacked. They had the names however Payton was a shell of himself in the playoffs (too many minutes and better suited coming off the bench like in Miami). Meanwhile Malone was nothing more than an elite role player. Kobe wasn't himself either and played under weight for most of that year(lack of conditioning due to his off the court issues). Then there were the chemistry issues, and off the floor beef with Shaq/Kobe.

Dont see the Spurs beating the Lakers in 2000. Phil got Shaq to play better defense and did a fantastic job employing his strengths. Was also critical in balancing the egos of Shaq and Kobe. The same Kobe who took a big leap from 99. And the year following that one, Kobe might have been the 2nd best player after Shaq.

[8Ball]

With Peak I mean like a 3-5 year period and I think Kobe during his 3 finals series with Lakers was more impressive than Lebron with his 3 finals series with Miami.

So you take Kobe's best 3 finals performances and randomly take Miami Bron.

Let's check this out:

Kobe's stats during 3 finals series with Lakers:

2010: 29/8/4 on 40%fg
2009: 32/6/7 on 43%fg
2008: 25/5/5 on 40%fg

LeBron's stats during 3 last finals with Cavs:

2018: 34/9/10 on 52%fg
2017: 33/12/10 on 56%fg
2016: 30/11/9 on 49%fg

LeBron's 3 last finals with Miami:

2014 - 28/8/4 on 58%fg
2013 - 25/11/7 on 44%fg
2012 - 29/10/5 on 47%fg


Tell me who peaked higher???


Kobe peaking higher than Bron is a MYTH and has been DEBUNKED



If you want to take Bron 2011, I'll gladly throw in Kobe 2000 finals or 2004 finals.

[8Ball]

I guess this still needs to be reposted as a light slap on the hand

LeBron's 2018 playoff run alone was better than all of the peaks from any of Kobe's 20-year playoffs

https://i.postimg.cc/QtTcRFL4/FB_IMG_1528921326607.jpg

The End



90sgoat said "Kobe peaked higher than Bron" :roll:


Even when you take Kobe's best stats from each playoff run and put it together he still doesn't peak higher than 2018 Bron.

[HylianNightmare]

9.

[ELITEpower23]

Kobe

Regular Season
25.0 PPG / 5.2 RPG / 4.7 APG / 0.5 BPG / 1.4 SPG / 44.7% FG

Playoffs
25.6 PPG / 5.1 RPG / 4.7 APG / 0.7 BPG / 1.4 SPG / 44.8% FG



Game 7s
22.2 PPG / 8.0 RPG / 5.0 APG / 1.3 BPG / 1.0 SPG / 38.9% FG

Elimination Games
22.3 PPG / 5.8 RPG / 3.5 APG / 1.3 BPG / 1.3 SPG / 44.0% FG

Finals
25.3 PPG / 5.7 RPG / 5.1 APG / 0.9 BPG / 1.8 SPG / 41.2% FG





Lebron

Regular Season
27.0 PPG / 7.4 RPG / 7.4 APG / 0.7 BPG / 1.6 SPG / 50.4% FG

Playoffs
28.7 PPG / 9.0 RPG / 7.2 APG / 0.9 BPG / 1.7 SPG / 49.5% FG


Game 7s
34.87 PPG / 9.87 RPG / 5.6 APG / 0.8 BPG / 1.7 SPG / 48.7% FG


Elimination Games
33.48 PPG / 10.76 RPG / 7.4 APG / 1.0 BPG / 1.6 SPG / 48.8% FG

Finals
28.2 PPG / 10.0 RPG / 7.7 APG / 0.8 BPG / 1.7 SPG / 47.65% FG

LeBron is leading in every stat in every category (Regular Season, Playoffs, Elimination Games, and Game 7s) plus Kobe never shot above 44.8% for any category while LeBron shot above 44.8% for every category. Massacre.

[3ba11]

Averaging 30 in the triangle and winning with the triangle is the best pure basketball accomplishment in history

Therefore, MJ is #1 and Kobe is #2

There's no "what's the highest ranking" or bs like that.. MJ/Kobe are 1 and 2 because they had the skills to produce a lot and win with the triangle, which no one else in history could do\

This is a pure basketball accomplishment that required all aspects of basketball skill, including the invention of new footwork that everyone now uses (dirk, kawhi, etc), and also adjusting to teammates so they play to capacity.

Imagine telling Lebron to average 30 without dominating the ball in the triangle - he'd promptly change coaches or teams... facts

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

At best? Top 8


Averaging 30 in the triangle and winning with the triangle is the best pure basketball accomplishment in history

Therefore, MJ is #1 and Kobe is #2

There's no "what's the highest ranking" or bs like that.. MJ/Kobe are 1 and 2 because they had the skills to produce a lot and win with the triangle, which no one else in history could do

So what's your opinion on Shaq? He outproduced Kobe en-route to a 3-peat, while dominating in the finals.

I don't ever hear you talk about his GOAT argument. Why?

[3ba11]

At best? Top 8



So what's your opinion on Shaq? He outproduced Kobe en-route to a 3-peat, while dominating in the finals.

I don't ever hear you talk about his GOAT argument. Why?


Ball-dominators and centers need more help than guys like Kobe, MJ, Dirk or Kawhi.

So all of the centers and ball-dominators have been knocked down my rankings, including Shaq...

Ultimately, the triangle won 11 chips with MJ or his clone (kobe).. That's because the triangle puts role players in optimal spots, but still needs a bailout on 10-20% of possessions - so it nothing for 50 years until it met the goat bailout artists it needed to make the offense championship-caliber - then it won 11 times in 18 years.

So MJ, Kobe and Bird are 1, 2, 3... And that won't change unless KD, Kawhi or Giannis wins 2-3 more chips each.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Ball-dominators and centers need more help than guys like Kobe, MJ, Dirk or Kawhi.

So all of the centers and ball-dominators have been knocked down my rankings, including Shaq...

Ultimately, the triangle won 11 chips with MJ or his clone (kobe).. That's because the triangle puts role players in optimal spots, but still needs a bailout on 10-20% of possessions - so it nothing for 50 years until it met the goat bailout artists it needed to make the offense championship-caliber - then it won 11 times in 18 years.

So MJ, Kobe and Bird are 1, 2, 3... And that won't change unless KD, Kawhi or Giannis wins 2-3 more chips each.

Shaq won a title averaging 38/17 on 61%FG. That's with his 2nd option putting up 16/5/4 on 37% shooting.

Your theory doesn't hold weight sir. Objectively, that's one of the biggest 'carry jobs' ever.

[3ba11]

Shaq won a title averaging 38/17 on 61%FG. That's with his 2nd option putting up 16/5/4 on 37% shooting.

Your theory doesn't hold weight sir. Objectively, that's one of the biggest 'carry jobs' ever.


That's 1 ring and the real Finals was the 00' WCF where Shaq and Kobe were 1a/1b like the 14' ECF with Lebron/Wade

Otherwise, Shaq needs a shit-ton of help for his entire career - he basically needs Jordan as a teammate to win.

Similarly, other centers like Kareem needed a ton of help, while ball-dominators need super-teams to win

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That's 1 ring and the real Finals was the 00' WCF where Shaq and Kobe were 1a/1b like the 14' ECF with Lebron/Wade

Otherwise, Shaq needs a shit-ton of help for his entire career - he basically needs Jordan as a teammate to win.

Similarly, other centers like Kareem needed a ton of help, while ball-dominators need super-teams to win

Your boy never had a ring that dominant. Stop it, Kobeball.

[3ba11]

Your boy never had a ring that dominant. Stop it, Kobeball.


I don't remember Shaq averaging 41 or 20 more than his sidekick

When did that happen?

And I bet if we look up the pace, the 00' Finals was faster

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't remember Shaq averaging 41 or 20 more than his sidekick

When did that happen?

And I bet if we look up the pace, the 00' Finals was faster

I said your boy, not the big dog you hide behind. :oldlol:

In 2000, Shaq outscored Kobe by 22 points in the finals. Since you care about efficiency, Shaq's 2001 and 2002 rings were also more dominant than Kobe's 2009 and 2010 rings.

[3ba11]

I said your boy, not the big dog you hide behind. :oldlol:

Shaq's 2000 ring was more dominant than anything Kobe ever produced. Since you also care about efficiency, Shaq's 2001 and 2002 rings were also more dominant than Kobe's 2009 and 2010 rings.


But Shaq's skillset resulted in a brand of team ball that needs Jordan as a teammate to win (Kobe, Wade), while the goat sophistication of Kobe's skillset allows victory with just Pau (a 1x all-star before joining Goatbe)

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But Shaq's skillset resulted in a brand of team ball that needs Jordan as a teammate to win (Kobe, Wade), while the goat sophistication of Kobe's skillset allows victory with just Pau (a 1x all-star before joining Goatbe)

And yet, the results don't match what you are claiming. Shaq was the clear-cut best player on that LA team.

[3ba11]

And yet, the results don't match what you are claiming. Shaq was the clear-cut best player on that LA team.


Kobe could easily be argued the best in 2001 and 2002 - both have arguments... Kobe's play against the 01' Spurs is goat skills.. It was always 1a/1b in the WCF (the real Finals - the East was extremely weak in that decade with a bunch of 1-star teams winning the conference)

[ELITEpower23]

Kobe could easily be argued the best in 2001 and 2002 - both have arguments... Kobe's play against the 01' Spurs is goat skills.. It was always 1a/1b in the WCF (the real Finals - the East was extremely weak in that decade with a bunch of 1-star teams winning the conference)

Kobe3ball meltdown :oldlol: Cute. No wonder you hate LeBron so much, he crushed any hopes of Kobe being top ten.

[HoopsNY]

In 2001 Shaq dropped 27/13/54% on those two in a sweep ( Kobe played out of his mind as well). I would expect something in that range in 2000. The reason it would go to 6 IMO is because 2000 Kobe < 2001 Kobe.

Yea, that is true, but that was the next season when Robinson wasn't the same. I think the series would have definitely been interesting, though obviously a win can't be guaranteed.


Hakeem was facing individually better centers ( including young Shaq) but you could argue that Shaq was facing better overall frontlines. Duncan/Robinson frontline, Sabonis/Wallace, Divac/Webber. To my memory Hakeem was abusing Robinson on single coverage, I don't recall Rodman having much to do with that. The reality is, Shaq was so dominant inside 5 feet that you were using your entire frontline's worth of fouls just to put him on the line, or it was an easy two. 2000 Shaq, in 1995, is dropping numbers as well. Hell, Shaq in 95 against Hakeem was dropping 29ppg/57% taking 40 less shots than Hakeem did, and he was well off from his peak. The degree to which Hakeem 'outplayed' Shaq in that series is a bit overblown, it was moreso the Rockets supporting cast outplaying the young Magic team than the Hakeem/Shaq matchup. The Magic never recovered from the Nick Anderson meltdown or it's likely a much closer series.


That's underrating Hakeem's opposition in the front court a bit much, don't you think?

For one, Divac/Webber weren't a elite defensive tandem; Sacramento's defense was more anchored by guys like Williamson and Christie. Divac and Webber certainly weren't anything spectacular.

The same with a guy like Sheed. Sheed in 2000, for example, couldn't catch a rebound to save his life. And everyone knew Brian Grant was the best defensive player on that team, but Portland needed Sheed's offense more than anything, so Grant kinda became obsolete.

But look at the tandems in the front that Hakeem was up against. For one, he faced Shaq, but also had Horace Grant down low. Grant was All-Defensive four years in a row, including the 1995 season when they made the finals.

You mentioned Robinson/Rodman, which is probably as elite as it gets all-time.

And the Knicks had Ewing and Oakley. Oakley was getting DPOY votes in 1994, and was All-Defensive 1st Team.

Hakeem faced the best of the best.


Also, Shaq was dropping those numbers while having Kobe in 2001 and 2002 dropping 25-30. If you stick that version of Kobe on the 94 and 95 Rockets Hakeem wouldn't have those scoring numbers( volume-wise anyway). He wouldn't need to in that case.

Yea but defenses would also have to give more attention to Kobe, too. And Kobe was as much of a slasher as he was an outside shooter in those days.

Shaq averaged 21 FGA in those three playoff runs to Hakeem's 24. And Hakeem put up 33 PPG in the 1995 finals on a team that still scored a total 114 PPG in the series.

[3ba11]

Your boy never had a ring that dominant. Stop it, Kobeball.


Shaq needs more help than Kobe because Shaq needed Kobe, while Kobe just needed Pau

[HBK_Kliq_2]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career_p.html

As far as playing today, Kawhi\Durant should easily pass him up barring any major injury.

Giannis has a good chance if he keeps going how he's going.

Curry\Harden are long shots

Chris Paul is pretty much dead after his finals loss

Right now Kobe at 5th alltime career playoff VORP.

1.5 VORP for a 2nd round run playoff is about where Kawhi\Durant are playing at.

Kawhi just needs three more playoff runs at 1.5 to pass him up

Durant would need just two more playoff runs at 1.5 to pass him up

Harden\Paul\Curry are all huge long shots and need like 5 more playoff runs at least getting to the 2nd round

[Axe]

Kobe could easily be argued the best in 2001 and 2002 - both have arguments... Kobe's play against the 01' Spurs is goat skills.. It was always 1a/1b in the WCF (the real Finals - the East was extremely weak in that decade with a bunch of 1-star teams winning the conference)
The black mamba was such a hardheaded prick who showed he was uncoachable back then. Also, just like your hero, he never won anything without tutelage from the zen master.

[HoopsNY]

I don't view the 2004 Lakers as stacked. They had the names however Payton was a shell of himself in the playoffs (too many minutes and better suited coming off the bench like in Miami). Meanwhile Malone was nothing more than an elite role player. Kobe wasn't himself either and played under weight for most of that year(lack of conditioning due to his off the court issues). Then there were the chemistry issues, and off the floor beef with Shaq/Kobe.

Dont see the Spurs beating the Lakers in 2000. Phil got Shaq to play better defense and did a fantastic job employing his strengths. Was also critical in balancing the egos of Shaq and Kobe. The same Kobe who took a big leap from 99. And the year following that one, Kobe might have been the 2nd best player after Shaq.

That's definitely one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is comparing the previous year's combination at the 4 and 1 with the year in question. Who would you rather have:

Horry/Walker or Malone/Horry?

Fisher/Shaw or Payton/Fisher?

The question is more or less rhetorical, but it drives the point home, especially when the Lakers were a 50 win team and lost to the Spurs, then win 54 games and beat the Spurs the very next year.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kobe could easily be argued the best in 2001 and 2002 - both have arguments... Kobe's play against the 01' Spurs is goat skills.. It was always 1a/1b in the WCF (the real Finals - the East was extremely weak in that decade with a bunch of 1-star teams winning the conference)

:oldlol:

Not according to the stats you post on here, and for the man you hide behind.

From 2000-2002, Shaq's raw and advanced numbers were better. Shaq also played better than Kobe on the biggest stage. In 2000, Shaq outscored Kobe by a whopping 22 points. Since you're big on 'carry jobs' that one was the ultimate carry.

[MadDog]

That's definitely one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is comparing the previous year's combination at the 4 and 1 with the year in question. Who would you rather have:

Horry/Walker or Malone/Horry?

Fisher/Shaw or Payton/Fisher?

The question is more or less rhetorical, but it drives the point home, especially when the Lakers were a 50 win team and lost to the Spurs, then win 54 games and beat the Spurs the very next year.

In a vacuum I would pick Malone\Horry & Payton\Fisher. But cohesion matters which I am sure you can appreciate. That and the Kobe\Shaq duo already peaked. They locked horns the moment Kobe was drafted, but in 2004 they were not on the same page. Far from it. Not even Phil could repair that relationship. Actually surprised he came back to coach Kobe after the "Last Season" book.

[RRR3]

:oldlol:

Not according to the stats you post on here, and for the man you hide behind.

From 2000-2002, Shaq's raw and advanced numbers were better. Shaq also played better than Kobe on the biggest stage. In 2000, Shaq outscored Kobe by a whopping 22 points. Since you're big on 'carry jobs' that one was the ultimate carry.
It’s so obvious why he used Mike instead of Kobe. Look how badly he’s getting bullied when he tries to talk up Kobe

[3ba11]

:oldlol:

Not according to the stats you post on here, and for the man you hide behind.

From 2000-2002, Shaq's raw and advanced numbers were better. Shaq also played better than Kobe on the biggest stage. In 2000, Shaq outscored Kobe by a whopping 22 points. Since you're big on 'carry jobs' that one was the ultimate carry.


The point remains - Kobe needed less help than Shaq to win and it's because Kobe is skilled, while Shaq relies on athleticism more, kind of like Lebron..

Centers and ball-dominators need more help because they're less skilled.

[Phoenix]

Yea, that is true, but that was the next season when Robinson wasn't the same. I think the series would have definitely been interesting, though obviously a win can't be guaranteed.



Was it really that much of a difference between 2000 Robinson and 2001 Robinson?

Points/rebounds/blocks
2000 Robinson: 18/10/2 32mpg all-NBA third
2001 Robinson: 14/9/3 30mpg all-NBA third

PER36:
2000 Robinson: 20/11/3
2001 Robinson: 18/11/3

A couple of points were shaved off( Duncan assuming the primary offensive role) but if we're just talking defensively Robinson actually averaged slightly more blocks in 2001 while playing less minutes. Nah, I think you're overplaying the difference here. Whatever Shaq did to the Admiral in 2001, he more or less would have down in 2000.




1)That's underrating Hakeem's opposition in the front court a bit much, don't you think?

For one, Divac/Webber weren't a elite defensive tandem; Sacramento's defense was more anchored by guys like Williamson and Christie. Divac and Webber certainly weren't anything spectacular.

The same with a guy like Sheed. Sheed in 2000, for example, couldn't catch a rebound to save his life. And everyone knew Brian Grant was the best defensive player on that team, but Portland needed Sheed's offense more than anything, so Grant kinda became obsolete.

But look at the tandems in the front that Hakeem was up against. For one, he faced Shaq, but also had Horace Grant down low. Grant was All-Defensive four years in a row, including the 1995 season when they made the finals.

You mentioned Robinson/Rodman, which is probably as elite as it gets all-time.

And the Knicks had Ewing and Oakley. Oakley was getting DPOY votes in 1994, and was All-Defensive 1st Team.

Hakeem faced the best of the best.



2)Yea but defenses would also have to give more attention to Kobe, too. And Kobe was as much of a slasher as he was an outside shooter in those days.

3)Shaq averaged 21 FGA in those three playoff runs to Hakeem's 24. And Hakeem put up 33 PPG in the 1995 finals on a team that still scored a total 114 PPG in the series.


1)I only said I thought Shaq's frontcourt opposition overall was better, not that Hakeem's was weak, so I don't see where I underrated anything with that comment. That said, Hakeem's overall frontcourt opposition may have been better defensively now that you broke it down further, but not offensively.

2) They could only give him so much attention with Hakeem down low running a 2 game game. 2001 Kobe was more of a slasher but he was already a better shooter than Clyde was. This would have been like placing a diet coke version of prime MJ next to Hakeem. 2001 Kobe would have been just as good in 1995, and provided more offense than Clyde in that situation. Hakeem wouldn't have needed to drop the same volume with a higher scoring 2nd option, not a hard thing to extrapolate.

3) Ok, and since Shaq shot like 57% in that timespace we can reasonably conclude that giving him 24 shots is going to result in the same volume. In the 2001 finals against Mutumbo he dropped 33ppg on 22 shots, the team averaged 101. Same volume, less shots, and a greater percentage of the teams points. You give 2000-2002 Shaq 24 shots a game.....33 is the baseline you can expect and the only reason it wasn't more is because of shitty foul-shooting(51% in the 2001 finals). Imagine this due shooting like....70% at the line. We can nitpick the competition but there isn't a thing anyone would or could do with him, era be damned.

[steezy]

Kobe is easily top 5 and most likely #3/4 to most objective fans. Jordan Lebron Kobe Duncan KAJ with 3 and 4 being interchangeable

[SaintzFury13]

Kobe is easily top 5 and most likely #3/4 to most objective fans. Jordan Lebron Kobe Duncan KAJ with 3 and 4 being interchangeable

There is no argument for Kobe being top 5. None.

[Kenny Griffin]

co goat

[HoopsNY]

Was it really that much of a difference between 2000 Robinson and 2001 Robinson?

Points/rebounds/blocks
2000 Robinson: 18/10/2 32mpg all-NBA third
2001 Robinson: 14/9/3 30mpg all-NBA third

PER36:
2000 Robinson: 20/11/3
2001 Robinson: 18/11/3

A couple of points were shaved off( Duncan assuming the primary offensive role) but if we're just talking defensively Robinson actually averaged slightly more blocks in 2001 while playing less minutes. Nah, I think you're overplaying the difference here. Whatever Shaq did to the Admiral in 2001, he more or less would have down in 2000.

Robinson's stats were better in 2000, but you could also tell he was more mobile when watching him play. And the idea here isn't that it is merely a one-on-one game. The Spurs were able to limit Shaq down low in '99, largely because they had the Duncan/Robinson combination.

While this would have been Robinson a year later, Duncan was also in his peak. My argument is that we didn't get to see this matchup because Duncan was hurt and didn't play in the playoffs.

Here's food for thought - in 2003, the Spurs beat LA with Robinson being 37 and playing a limited 21 mpg. Shaq put up 25/14/4/1/3 on 56% in that series.

In 2002, LA beat SA with Shaq averaging just 21/12/3/1/3 on 44%, one of the lowest statistical outputs of Shaq's career, and that series went just 5 games.

The 2000 Lakers were taken to 5 games against a 44 win Sacramento team, a game 7 against Portland in the WCF, and 6 games against a Pacers team.

Adding a peak Duncan in the playoffs to the Spurs absolutely changes things, and it's reasonable to think that their combination of Duncan/Robinson could limit Shaq. Of course, a win isn't guaranteed, but I think the whole peak-Shaq thing is overrated as far as 2000 goes. Many people praise their ability to win 67 games, but fail to look at some of the struggles they had in the playoffs.



1)I only said I thought Shaq's frontcourt opposition overall was better, not that Hakeem's was weak, so I don't see where I underrated anything with that comment. That said, Hakeem's overall frontcourt opposition may have been better defensively now that you broke it down further, but not offensively.


Yea, but Shaq wasn't guarding those guys anyway.


2) They could only give him so much attention with Hakeem down low running a 2 game game. 2001 Kobe was more of a slasher but he was already a better shooter than Clyde was. This would have been like placing a diet coke version of prime MJ next to Hakeem. 2001 Kobe would have been just as good in 1995, and provided more offense than Clyde in that situation. Hakeem wouldn't have needed to drop the same volume with a higher scoring 2nd option, not a hard thing to extrapolate.

I just don't know if this is necessarily the case. Look at Hakeem's production between 1994-96.

1994 (No Drexler or Barkley): 21 FGA | 27 PPG

1995 (w/o Drexler): 22 FGA | 28 PPG
1995 (w/Drexler): 21 FGA | 27 PPG

1996 (w/Drexler & Barkley): 21 FGA | 27 PPG

Hakeem's numbers remain consistent when looking at his output in the regular season; things don't really change much whether a guy like Clyde or Barkley is there. Adding Kobe, IMHO, takes away from other perimeter players more so than it does Hakeem, so I think the volume remains the same.


3) Ok, and since Shaq shot like 57% in that timespace we can reasonably conclude that giving him 24 shots is going to result in the same volume. In the 2001 finals against Mutumbo he dropped 33ppg on 22 shots, the team averaged 101. Same volume, less shots, and a greater percentage of the teams points. You give 2000-2002 Shaq 24 shots a game.....33 is the baseline you can expect and the only reason it wasn't more is because of shitty foul-shooting(51% in the 2001 finals). Imagine this due shooting like....70% at the line. We can nitpick the competition but there isn't a thing anyone would or could do with him, era be damned.

Which is why I mentioned Hakeem's scoring isn't that much different - in reality - when you consider his ability to not only get to the line, but hit his free throws. Peak Hakeem could shoot a decent 75% from the line. Was he has dominant as Shaq? Obviously not, but his ability to spread the floor and hit free throws does matter. And if you put big bodies down low who weren't old or injured, then Shaq becomes somewhat neutralized, especially if you decided to foul him and put him on the line.

It was much harder to neutralize Hakeem because you could throw elite centers at him and it just wouldn't matter.

[RogueBorg]

Centers and ball-dominators need more help because they're less skilled.

He's right about this, centers need another player to get them the ball, and for Shaq that was in the post. There never was a time when the great centers could bring the ball up court and take their defender off the dribble to create their own shot.

[Phoenix]

@HoopsNY, the hypotheticals based on what could, should, would, maybe, maybe not based on things we will never know runs its course with me after a few long posts. I know we discuss hypotheticals often when it comes to sports but I'm not 'that' invested in this particular discourse to keep up the long back and forths. I stand by my prior comments regarding Hakeem and Shaq and you of course will do the same for yours.

You're a good poster so respect. :cheers:

[bizil]

I think the key thing that hurts Mamba is the fact he didn't revolutionize his position the way the other top 10 GOAT guys did. Those guys totally reshaped their position. Even in the case of Duncan, we had never seen a 7 foot PF with the interior two way dominance of the great centers. BUT Timmy combined it with a lot of the new age elements of the 2000s PF. With that said when you combined scoring skillset, handles, passing, and defense as a package, Kobe is the most skilled player ever.

Plus he was a freak athlete on top of it. I truly think that's his mark! Most skilled ever is a huge title! It's like how people see a Willie Mays, Bonds, Griffey, or Trout in baseball. Or from a QB perspective, a Mahomes or Rodgers. Guys that aren't the GOAT overall (Mahomes who knows what will happen). But from an overall skill level, top of the heap!

On a GOAT level, I think you could make a case for 5-10 to be honest. For me, 6-8 sounds about right to me! Just so happened he was very similar to the GOAT! It's VERY RARE you see two icons from different generations be that similar! It came across as if Kobe was the MJ remix. Not as good, BUT THE ONLY ONE who could LEGIT across as the MJ remix! And was closer to MJ as player than people think! Kobe's lack of efficiency and hero ball is the key difference!

[HoopsNY]

@HoopsNY, the hypotheticals based on what could, should, would, maybe, maybe not based on things we will never know runs its course with me after a few long posts. I know we discuss hypotheticals often when it comes to sports but I'm not 'that' invested in this particular discourse to keep up the long back and forths. I stand by my prior comments regarding Hakeem and Shaq and you of course will do the same for yours.

You're a good poster so respect. :cheers:

Well, that's for sure. We will never know and these are purely hypotheticals. But likewise, you're an ISH great, so the respect is mutual.

[72-10]

you've changed definition of your terminology, so I suppose you mean how close to the top? If so, quite frankly I'd say his original jersey number

[72-10]

I wouldn't put him there. Kobe's probably in that tier with Bird, Duncan & Hakeem. If I were to put him 7, it would have to be over Duncan, Bird, Hakeem and/or Russell. Over Duncan because Kobe frequently beat his teams in the playoffs - and had great numbers throughout. Bird because of his lack of longevity. Hakeem because of Kobe's career accomplishments. Russell because his lack of skill and the fact he only dominated one side of the ball (Magic did as well, but I also believe Magic was the better player).

Again, I wouldn't make those arguments - but they're the only ones I could think of lol

I wouldn't say that. Kobe deliberately did not pass the ball three times in a half of play on 26 different occasions, none of those other guys did it once in their careers, in fact they didn't come remotely close to doing it. Second-place all-time for the stat is probably 3.

[AirBonner]

14