View Full Version : Better at basketball, Jokić or Kobe?
You only interpret it as a personal attack because you know it's true. You didn't play. You were never a student of the game.
I’ve played and you don’t need to play to know Kobe is overrated. All your arguments are terrible you just rely on emotions and claim stats are biased against poor Kobe :lol
tpols
09-06-2025, 08:38 AM
I’ve played and you don’t need to play to know Kobe is overrated. All your arguments are terrible you just rely on emotions and claim stats are biased against poor Kobe :lol
:roll:
Thats the laugh I needed to start the day. Just imagining your goofy fro swaying in the wind, a look of bewilderment on your face as everyone just runs around you, fumbling and stumbling whenever [if ever] you get the ball. Man that would be a sight to behold.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 09:27 AM
I’ve played and you don’t need to play to know Kobe is overrated. All your arguments are terrible you just rely on emotions and claim stats are biased against poor Kobe :lol
No one that grew up playing the game would have such blind allegiance to "data" like you do. It appears to be your only avenue of knowledge. It's the only thing you're interested in talking about.
Stats are just the tip of the iceberg. The raw numbers are what's visible on the surface, but the bulk of what shapes those numbers lie hidden beneath. A bucket scored during the first two minutes of the game is "tallied" the same as a bucket during scored during the last two minutes, but we all know the last two minutes are a much harsher environment to score in. That's just ONE of the countless things the raw numbers don't take into account.
Not to mention you're holding players from the past to a current standard that didn't exist. 60s/70/80s/90s/00s/10s/20s, none of these eras were the same. You can't just stack the numbers side by side and draw your own conclusions.
No one that grew up playing the game would have such blind allegiance to "data" like you do. It appears to be your only avenue of knowledge. It's the only thing you're interested in talking about.
Stats are just the tip of the iceberg. The raw numbers are what's visible on the surface, but the bulk of what shapes those numbers lie hidden beneath. A bucket scored during the first two minutes of the game is "tallied" the same as a bucket during scored during the last two minutes, but we all know the last two minutes are a much harsher environment to score in. That's just ONE of the countless things the raw numbers don't take into account.
Not to mention you're holding players from the past to a current standard that didn't exist. 60s/70/80s/90s/00s/10s/20s, none of these eras were the same. You can't just stack the numbers side by side and draw your own conclusions.
Maybe you’re unaware but this data is what NBA teams use to build their roster. Some impact data isn’t publicly available because NBA teams don’t want others to see it in fact. If teams built it based on vibes like you? They’d be terrible. I hate to break it to you but the “nerds” won. That’s how teams get built across sports now. Watch the movie moneyball. People with your primitive mindset got phased out from making decisions in team building.
Smart teams analyze data and don’t base it on who they have a crush on like you do. I get that Kobe made you feel all tingly inside when he made a contested midrange shot but you can’t just ignore stats because they don’t support your loverboy. We can just compare him to his contemporaries and he comes up short so you trying to deflect to other eras is funny considering you have no real argument for how he was better than Shaq LeBron or Duncan besides “clutch bucket getter” or whatever when we already established he wasn’t a particularly good big game performer compared to those guys.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 09:56 AM
Kobe played like a retard in that game 7 and people here are saying he played a "great game"
Can't make this shit up. :oldlol:
Go to 34:40 mark. The moment Kobe takes a dribble, the Celtics come to double, instead of passing it, he forces terrible shots that miss badly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19kCMpF-86c
Kobe played like a retard in that game 7 and people here are saying he played a "great game"
Can't make this shit up. :oldlol:
Go to 34:40 mark. The moment Kobe takes a dribble, the Celtics come to double, instead of passing it, he forces terrible shots that miss badly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19kCMpF-86c
Stuff like that was frequent with Kobe too. It’s bad low IQ basketball and his stans pretend it’s not because “5 rings”.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 10:08 AM
"watch the games" - warriorfan
There is a literal play in that game where the Celtics double Kobe and he still decides to shoot and the ball hits the top of the backboard.
You even see Phil Jackson during a timeout say that they are not getting good shots because the ball isn't moving enough. Alot of that was on Kobe.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 10:13 AM
1:06:50 mark. Look at all those shots Kobe is taking over double teams, and when he is not doubled they are still heavily contested.
"great game" though. :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19kCMpF-86c
Baller234
09-06-2025, 10:44 AM
Maybe you’re unaware but this data is what NBA teams use to build their roster. Some impact data isn’t publicly available because NBA teams don’t want others to see it in fact. If teams built it based on vibes like you? They’d be terrible. I hate to break it to you but the “nerds” won. That’s how teams get built across sports now. Watch the movie moneyball. People with your primitive mindset got phased out from making decisions in team building.
Smart teams analyze data and don’t base it on who they have a crush on like you do. I get that Kobe made you feel all tingly inside when he made a contested midrange shot but you can’t just ignore stats because they don’t support your loverboy. We can just compare him to his contemporaries and he comes up short so you trying to deflect to other eras is funny considering you have no real argument for how he was better than Shaq LeBron or Duncan besides “clutch bucket getter” or whatever when we already established he wasn’t a particularly good big game performer compared to those guys.
Lol, the nerds won? The game is basically randomized now. Whichever team gets hot from three at the right time wins. You could fail to execute in every other facet of the game, play terrible d, but if you're hitting your threes and the other team isn't... that's ballgame.
Every team is robotic now. They have a perimeter attack but NOTHING else. Celtics are supposedly a championship team but when the shot isn't falling they have NOTHING to fall back on. Tatum and Brown just keep HOISTING up threes. You talk about Kobe shooting his teams out of games but never in my life have I seen more PLAYOFF games where teams are getting blown out by 30 and 40. Because on those nights when the team isn't shooting well, they have NO SHOT to win.
And this method of "efficient" basketball only exists because the rules ALLOW it to exist. Because shooters ALLOW it to exist. If you applied this same method to a roster in 2006... it DOESN'T work. You're not getting 120 pts a game from MOST of those teams. They don't have the shooting or the spacing. The teams back then were playing with a TOTALLY different deck of cards. Rest assured though, even if some stat wizard figured out how to make it work in 2006... I'm pretty sure he would find value in Kobe Bryant. :oldlol:
And yea... being a "clutch bucket getter" is pretty fukking important. Your boys Shaq, Duncan and Bron ALL relied on a clutch bucket getter at some point in their career to win a championship. In Game 7 of the finals against GS... when CLE needed a clutch bucket... that team went to Kyrie... NOT Bron. He was a PASSENGER on that play. He was off to the side and WATCHED.
When you talk about the greatest to ever do it, the top 25 all time... they are all GREAT players. They can all DOMINATE. They can all impose their will on the game in their own way. But who can dominate for ALL FOUR QUARTERS. Who can dominate when the GAME IS ON THE LINE?? Shaq?? :oldlol: No shot. Mentally fragile and doesn't have the skillet. Can't even shoot free throws. Duncan?? Mentally sure he's a killer but he doesn't have the skillset. Doesn't have half his rangz if not for Parker and Ginobili. Lebron?? If he was that guy CLE wouldn't have gone to Kyrie. :oldlol:
When it comes to Shaq, Duncan, Bron, Kobe... you could build a great team around ANY of those guys. If you cater to their strengths and surround them with the right talent, they would ALL be great teams. They are ALL going to be competitive.
But only ONE of those teams has a stone cold closer. That's the difference.
It’s not my fault you don’t understand what you’re watching in modern basketball. The schemes are far more complex, there is far more movement on both offense and defense today. Dumbing it down to “they just shoot 3s” is disingenuous at best. Do you seriously think things have somehow gotten worse in basketball as society has advanced? :lol
Your Kobe worship seems to be rooted in your nostalgia for your childhood. You want to believe you watched the best basketball. But you didn’t. That’s not how advancement works. Teams back then played extremely stupidly, often taking outright horrendous shots like a long two early in the shot clock. That’s simply bad basketball and we know that now. You have to realize the NBA is still a relatively young sport and until recently teams really didn’t play intelligently at all.
Watch this video baller:
https://youtu.be/fp4but75EjY?si=8hgZ2FBz7EFQBPhu
SouBeachTalents
09-06-2025, 11:31 AM
Rondo even credited Kobe for his tenacious defense on Ray and himself. Kendrick Perkins also recently claimed Kobe's rebounding was one of the biggest reasons that LA won. I personally wouldn't argue his G7 was "great", but given the context it wasn't horrific like stat nerds claim.
I also want to dive deeper into Kobe's elimination games. Baller234 made an interesting post regarding Kobe's early years (before he began and entered his prime). Looking at the numbers in elimination games, Prime Kobe actually averaged 25 on 41% shooting. And if you removed that elimination game 7 vs Houston (LA was already up 20+ in the 2nd quarter :oldlol:), his averages would be 26 on 41%. I didn't calculate the assists or rebounding, but looking at the stats, Kobe was pretty good there too. These numbers also don't tell you about defense and we know in big games Kobe revved it up on that end.
Tallying everything up, I think Kobe was alright in elimination games. Not bad or great. Numbers should always be put into proper perspective though.
If you want to remove his first 2 years when he was still a bench player, that's fair. Discounting those, Kobe averaged 24/6/4 on 51%TS, imo quite underwhelming for a guy lauded for his scoring and clutch performance and considered a top 10 player of all time.
To his credit, he had some good elimination games during the 3peat, it's really after that he's a pretty inarguably bad elimination game performer for a player of his stature.
2003 WCSF Game 6: 20/2/6 on 9/19 with 7 TO's, they lose by 28 at home
2004 Finals Game 5: 24/3/4 on 7/21, they lose by 13 but trailed by 28 with 4:30 to go
2006 FR Game 7: 24/4/1 on 8/16, he infamously quits in the 2nd half and they lose by 31
2007 FR Game 5: 34/4/1 on 13/33 with 6 TO's, they lose by 9
2008 Finals Game 5: 25/7/4 on 8/21 with 6 TO's, they stave off elimination
2008 Finals Game 6: 22/3/1 on 7/22 with 4 TO's, they lose by 39
2009 WCSF Game 7: 14/7/5 on 4/12, they won in a blowout so you don't have to put a lot of emphasis on this one, still not a good game by any measure
2010 Finals Game 6: 26/11/3 on 9/19, they stave off elimination
2010 Finals Game 7: 23/15/2 on 6/24 with 4 TO's, some people claim this a great performance, I would disagree with that assertion
2011 WCSF Game 4: 17/3/1 on 7/18 with 5 TO's, they lose by 36 as the series favorite
2012 FR Game 7: 17/1/8 on 7/16, they stave off elimination
2012 WCSF Game 5: 42/5/0 on 18/33, they lose by 16
That's a consistent track record of extremely poor-underwhelming performances and his team getting obliterated. These are a dozen games all in his prime, and I'd say maybe 2 of them were good. Even the OKC game he dropped 40, taking 33 shots and having zero assists is quite the Kobe way to go out in your final playoff game :lol
If you want to remove his first 2 years when he was still a bench player, that's fair. Discounting those, Kobe averaged 24/6/4 on 51%TS, imo quite underwhelming for a guy lauded for his scoring and clutch performance and considered a top 10 player of all time.
To his credit, he had some good elimination games during the 3peat, it's really after that he's a pretty inarguably bad elimination game performer for a player of his stature.
2003 WCSF Game 6: 20/2/6 on 9/19 with 7 TO's, they lose by 28 at home
2004 Finals Game 5: 24/3/4 on 7/21, they lose by 13 but trailed by 28 with 4:30 to go
2006 FR Game 7: 24/4/1 on 8/16, he infamously quits in the 2nd half and they lose by 31
2007 FR Game 5: 34/4/1 on 13/33 with 6 TO's, they lose by 9
2008 Finals Game 5: 25/7/4 on 8/21 with 6 TO's, they stave off elimination
2008 Finals Game 6: 22/3/1 on 7/22 with 4 TO's, they lose by 39
2009 WCSF Game 7: 14/7/5 on 4/12, they won in a blowout so you don't have to put a lot of emphasis on this one, still not a good game by any measure
2010 Finals Game 6: 26/11/3 on 9/19, they stave off elimination
2010 Finals Game 7: 23/15/2 on 6/24 with 4 TO's, some people claim this a great performance, I would disagree with that assertion
2011 WCSF Game 4: 17/3/1 on 7/18 with 5 TO's, they lose by 36 as the series favorite
2012 FR Game 7: 17/1/8 on 7/16, they stave off elimination
2012 WCSF Game 5: 42/5/0 on 18/33, they lose by 16
That's a consistent track record of extremely poor-underwhelming performances and his team getting obliterated. These are a dozen games all in his prime, and I'd say maybe 2 of them were good. Even the OKC game he dropped 40, taking 33 shots and having zero assists is quite the Kobe way to go out in your final playoff game :lol
Yeah, not sure I agree with your analysis (raw numbers don't include playing defense). I actually incorporated everything from Kobe's prime so the 2001 season and up. Not really sure why you're removing his 3-peat years. :confusedshrug: There shouldn't be an arbitrary cutoff. I'm also confused as to why you're now adding different criteria. Like losing, getting blown out and "being favorites" :oldlol: As a LeBron fan don't you think that would negate some of his "best" performances? lol
Do lebum stans realize lebum has worse and more humiliating moments than Kobe? Focusing on Kobe's bad plays LMAO who are you nerds fooling??
23 healthy seasons, 3 lucky rings and the most embarrassing moments of any atg.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 12:54 PM
Do lebum stans realize lebum has worse and more humiliating moments than Kobe? Focusing on Kobe's bad plays LMAO who are you nerds fooling??
23 healthy seasons, 3 lucky rings and the most embarrassing moments of any atg.
Kobe lucked himself into 3 rings by playing with peak Shaq.
Kobe lucked himself into 3 rings by playing with peak Shaq.
Not even worth arguing with that guy he can barely tie his shoes he’s so dumb.
1:06:50 mark. Look at all those shots Kobe is taking over double teams, and when he is not doubled they are still heavily contested.
"great game" though. :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19kCMpF-86c
Lebum fanboi post a video about lebum vs Diaw, Iggy, JJ barea, Terry, celtics quitjob, orlando quitjob, spurs 07, you should check the quitting and HORRIBLE decisions he made during those matchups? There's a LOT more. You should apply the same standards to your stat padding queen who is actually not a great basketball player compared to others before during and after.
Anyone remember lebum switching away from KD for that final shot like a straight up bitch?
Anyone remember him posting up midgets and kick it out like a bitch?
Anyone remember lebum disagreeing with mj saying kobe was better and more proven in 2013 and Kobe shutting his shit down in that asg and telling him 'you talk too much'?
Anyone remember lebum being scared of Kawhi coming back in and continued to shut his no fundamental having ass up. Then the cramps.
How would lebum's stats looked if he played in a triangle? Would he have accepted lesser stats for a ball moving system and Phil and shaq's ego?
SouBeachTalents
09-06-2025, 01:11 PM
Yeah, not sure I agree with your analysis (raw numbers don't include playing defense). I actually incorporated everything from Kobe's prime so the 2001 season and up. Not really sure why you're removing his 3-peat years. :confusedshrug: There shouldn't be an arbitrary cutoff. I'm also confused as to why you're now adding different criteria. Like losing, getting blown out and "being favorites" :oldlol: As a LeBron fan don't you think that would negate some of his "best" performances? lol
The notion his defense makes up for some of these performances is absolutely laughable, you'd have to have Bill Russell impact to try to salvage these performances and Kobe, esp after the 3peat, is not even in the stratosphere of that.
I didn't remove his 3peat years, I acknowledged that was the one instance he performed well, but that was a clear aberration as the rest of his career was filled with very poor performances.
I didn't add any criteria, I included how many points they lost by in each elimination game, and in most instances they got curb stomped. I added they were the favorites in 2011 to emphasize the fact they got swept and destroyed like that in the final game.
And you can whataboutism LeBron, an odd choice considering he's the GOAT elimination game performer, but nothing in LeBron's career changes anything about what factually occurred in Kobe's career regarding elimination games.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 01:12 PM
Anyone remember lebum disagreeing with mj saying kobe was better and more proven in 2013 and Kobe shutting his shit down in that asg and telling him 'you talk too much'?
The same MJ who failed miserably as a GM? Constantly drafting busts. We are taking his comparison seriously when evaluating players?
How would lebum's stats looked if he played in a triangle? Would he have accepted lesser stats for a ball moving system and Phil and shaq's ego?
The same triangle Phil ran as a GM with the Knicks despite being outdated with the current NBA?
LeGM acutally got some rings.
1987_Lakers
09-06-2025, 01:14 PM
Lebum fanboi post a video about lebum vs Diaw, Iggy, JJ barea, Terry, celtics quitjob, orlando quitjob, spurs 07, you should check the quitting and HORRIBLE decisions he made during those matchups? There's a LOT more. You should apply the same standards to your stat padding queen who is actually not a great basketball player compared to others before during and after.
Only difference is nobody is hyping up LeBron for his performance in 2011 vs Mavs or 2007 vs Spurs.
You have people calling Kobe's horrific game 7 in 2010 a "great game"
:roll:
Don’t let the desperate Kobe stans try to make this about LeBron fellas. This is about Jokic versus Kobe.
Lebron fanbois are not good at basketball and grew up without fathers.
Kobe was lebum's daddy for a minute there, but the bitch couldn't handle
it, went about it the wrong way because he doesn't understand manhood
or mastering the game he was forced to play because of his physic.
White liberal nerds love the trashy ghetto entertainer type losers, we know that much.
Lebron fanbois are not good at basketball and grew up without fathers.
Kobe was lebum's daddy for a minute there, but the bitch couldn't handle
it, went about it the wrong way because he doesn't understand manhood
or mastering the game he was forced to play because of his physic.
White liberal nerds love the trashy ghetto entertainer type losers, we know that much.
Only difference is nobody is hyping up LeBron for his performance in 2011 vs Mavs or 2007 vs Spurs.
You have people calling Kobe's horrific game 7 in 2010 a "great game"
:roll:
Few said it was great but he won, go defend your loser fraud.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 01:27 PM
It’s not my fault you don’t understand what you’re watching in modern basketball. The schemes are far more complex, there is far more movement on both offense and defense today. Dumbing it down to “they just shoot 3s” is disingenuous at best. Do you seriously think things have somehow gotten worse in basketball as society has advanced? :lol
Your Kobe worship seems to be rooted in your nostalgia for your childhood. You want to believe you watched the best basketball. But you didn’t. That’s not how advancement works. Teams back then played extremely stupidly, often taking outright horrendous shots like a long two early in the shot clock. That’s simply bad basketball and we know that now. You have to realize the NBA is still a relatively young sport and until recently teams really didn’t play intelligently at all.
I'm convinced you aren't reading my posts. I'm convinced you skim through, get emotionally triggered by a single sentence and then go off on a tangent. If you did you wouldn't have responded in this retarded manner.
The schemes are more "complex" because the shooting allows for it. If you took a time machine to a previous era and applied the same "scheme", it doesn't work. You don't have the shooters. If it's pre-2000's you don't even have the lanes. That means wayyy less drive and kick. If it's pre-MERGER you don't even have a 3pt line. :oldlol:
What's your brilliant plan then?? Tell me how any of these teams win without a 3pt line. :oldlol:
Jokic is literally 10 times better at basketball than lefraud, dead serious. Talk about a real all round player/stats on offense, like harden, luka and giannis in his own way. What makes what lebum does in his mandatory system with all the losing and lack of fundamentals so special? Is it his health and longevity? He has alot of weaknesses, losses and cowardly created the superteam era and still failed. It's strange, is it the breakaway dunks here and there? Is it espn?
Have some self respect bron fanbois, asking these delusional questions when Jokic is 10 times better at bball than lebum. Why Kobe?
I'm convinced you aren't reading my posts. I'm convinced you skim through, get emotionally triggered by a single sentence and then go off on a tangent. If you did you wouldn't have responded in this retarded manner.
The schemes are more "complex" because the shooting allows for it. If you took a time machine to a previous era and applied the same "scheme", it doesn't work. You don't have the shooters. If it's pre-2000's you don't even have the lanes. That means wayyy less drive and kick. If it's pre-MERGER you don't even have a 3pt line. :oldlol:
What's your brilliant plan then?? Tell me how any of these teams win without a 3pt line. :oldlol:
So you admit modern players are much more skilled and then go on to insist the product is somehow worse. You may struggle with object permanence.
The notion his defense makes up for some of these performances is absolutely laughable, you'd have to have Bill Russell impact to try to salvage these performances and Kobe, esp after the 3peat, is not even in the stratosphere of that.
I didn't remove his 3peat years, I acknowledged that was the one instance he performed well, but that was a clear aberration as the rest of his career was filled with very poor performances.
I didn't add any criteria, I included how many points they lost by in each elimination game, and in most instances they got curb stomped. I added they were the favorites in 2011 to emphasize the fact they got swept and destroyed like that in the final game.
And you can whataboutism LeBron, an odd choice considering he's the GOAT elimination game performer, but nothing in LeBron's career changes anything about what factually occurred in Kobe's career regarding elimination games.
And I'd counter argue saying the notion we just throwaway defense and only hone in on numbers...is even more comical. I mean, why watch or play the game? We can just punch-in numbers on a calculator lol. Nobody argued Kobe's defense "made up" for his shooting. What I'm challenging is your ridiculous claim that these games were "inarguably poor" while you simply regurgitate stats.
Kobe began his prime sometime during the middle of that 3-peat. You acknowledge that, ok fine, but still only posted his numbers from 2003 lol. You also removed Kobe's first 2 years off the bench, and then included non prime years like 1999 and 2000. Again no problem, but I was strictly talking about Kobe's prime.
You absolutely added additional criteria :lol Kobe had alright numbers in some of those, but you still made a point to talk about his team losing and getting crushed as favorites. You concluded that only like 2 games were 'good". Its disingenuous. Just say Kobe has a different standard than your favorite player, and stop beating around the bush.
I thought we were strictly debating individual performance. Now this dude is talking about LA "losing by 13" lol
Baller234
09-06-2025, 01:42 PM
So you admit modern players are much more skilled and then go on to insist the product is somehow worse. You may struggle with object permanence.
They're more skilled at shooting. Not much else. Remove the 3pt line and 80% of the players in the league become useless.
Teams actually had specialists back then. Scoring specialists, shooting specialists, defensive specialists, rebounding specialists, playmaking specialists... it was about combining talents and making a greater whole. If one thing fails they can lean on something else. Every team had specialists in the starting lineup.
The players now can shoot better, they're more athletic, they can spread the floor... but that's basically it. If that three isn't falling, they're useless. It's why so many games these days end in a blowout.
I couldn't help but notice you dodged my question though. Tell me how any of the teams today compete against older teams if there's no 3pt line. Tell me what happens if the Curry/Klay Warriors that went 73-9 play the Kobe/Gasol Lakers. :oldlol:
They're more skilled at shooting. Not much else. Remove the 3pt line and 80% of the players in the league become useless.
Teams actually had specialists back then. Scoring specialists, shooting specialists, defensive specialists, rebounding specialists, playmaking specialists... it was about combining talents and making a greater whole. If one thing fails they can lean on something else. Every team had specialists in the starting lineup.
The players now can shoot better, they're more athletic, they can spread the floor... but that's basically it. If that three isn't falling, they're useless. It's why so many games these days end in a blowout.
I couldn't help but notice you dodged my question though. Tell me how any of the teams today compete against older teams if there's no 3pt line. Tell me what happens if the Curry/Klay Warriors that went 73-9 play the Kobe/Gasol Lakers. :oldlol:
Players are much better at both offense and defense today did you even watch the video? There’s far more responsibilities for the average player today. Watch the video then get back to me.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 01:46 PM
Players are much better at both offense and defense today did you even watch the video? There’s far more responsibilities for the average player today. Watch the video then get back to me.
Answer the question.
The 09 Lakers vs the 16 Warriors, no 3pt line.
Who wins.
Answer the question.
The 09 Lakers vs the 16 Warriors, no 3pt line.
Who wins.
Still the Warriors Kobe would be helpless against Draymond and Iguodala and too selfish to pass it to the bigs down low. Now watch the video.
If you seriously think curry needs the 3pt line to be elite btw your bball IQ is awful.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 01:57 PM
Still the Warriors Kobe would be helpless against Draymond and Iguodala. Now watch the video.
For everyone following this thread and were on the fence, I hope this prime example of ignorance and stupidity helps sway you in some kind of direction.
As if you weren't already disqualified from the discussion, this only solidifies it for all time. I will weigh in if others want to keep debating but I'm definitely done going back and forth with you on this topic. :oldlol:
For everyone following this thread and were on the fence, I hope this prime example of ignorance and stupidity helps sway you in some kind of direction.
As if you weren't already disqualified from the discussion, this only solidifies it for all time. I will weigh in if others want to keep debating but I'm definitely done going back and forth with you on this topic. :oldlol:
Throwing a tantrum and quitting just like your hero Kobe did in the 2006 playoffs eh? Your tears won’t make Kobe top 20 all time. Cheer up tho he’s definitely top 50
Baller234
09-06-2025, 02:00 PM
Throwing a tantrum and quitting just like your hero Kobe did in the 2006 playoffs eh?
Go ahead, make another thread. Conduct another poll like you did this one.
09 Lakers vs 16 Warriors, no 3pt line.
See what kind of results you get. :oldlol:
Go ahead, make another thread. Conduct another poll like you did this one.
09 Lakers vs 16 Warriors, no 3pt line.
See what kind of results you get. :oldlol:
Probably better results than Kobe got in the clutch.
It’s very funny you still don’t get I’m winding you up bawler. But it’s just too easy. You see red and start typing furious paragraphs at the slightest provocation :oldlol:
Baller234
09-06-2025, 02:09 PM
The story of 3tard:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlP6StFCQAAmgU7?format=jpg&name=small
The story of 3tard:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlP6StFCQAAmgU7?format=jpg&name=small
I mean do you seriously think I think Kobe wasn’t a great player?
3tard always loses.
Hey bro has life been a little less harsh on you recently? Because i remember you being in a very bad spot some time ago.
I mean do you seriously think I think Kobe wasn’t a great player?
Who's better at basketball, Jokic or lebron.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 02:17 PM
I mean do you seriously think I think Kobe wasn’t a great player?
I think you're emotional when it comes to Lebron. I think you grew up watching him and feel attachment to him. Kobe is one of the few players who often gets tossed around in the discussion with him so you feel obligated to tarnish his name in Lebron's honor and create some distance between them.
Meanwhile it's the opposite for me. I rooted against Kobe his entire career. Was never much of a fan.
Who's better at basketball, Jokic or lebron.
When? Current LeBron or prime LeBron? Younger LeBron was a little better because of the defensive gap but Jokic is honestly probably better at offense. Might be the best ever on offense tbh. And obviously Jokic is much better than LeBron currently.
The funny thing is I don’t even like Jokic I just can see how great he is.
I think you're emotional when it comes to Lebron. I think you grew up watching him and feel attachment to him. Kobe is one of the few players who often gets tossed around in the discussion with him so you feel obligated to tarnish his name in Lebron's honor and create some distance between them.
Meanwhile it's the opposite for me. I rooted against Kobe his entire career. Was never much of a fan.
Nice
When? Current LeBron or prime LeBron? Younger LeBron was a little better because of the defensive gap but Jokic is honestly probably better at offense. Might be the best ever on offense tbh. And obviously Jokic is much better than LeBron currently.
The funny thing is I don’t even like Jokic I just can see how great he is.
Prime lebron was pure athleticism and even worse at basketball than now? Do you even know who you stan?
10 times better at basketball than mr FLAWS
shame on you bron fanboi, asking these dumb questions.
I think you're emotional when it comes to Lebron. I think you grew up watching him and feel attachment to him. Kobe is one of the few players who often gets tossed around in the discussion with him so you feel obligated to tarnish his name in Lebron's honor and create some distance between them.
Meanwhile it's the opposite for me. I rooted against Kobe his entire career. Was never much of a fan.
Nah I rank MJ ahead of LeBron. And I can see a case for Kareem. Peak wise you could argue Shaq and Wilt were better than LeBron. I think guys like Curry and Jokic are pretty damn close to LeBron, Curry actually made me question if LeBron was the best player I’d ever seen for a brief time in 2016. I think Wembanyama has the potential to be better than LeBron too. Kobe just was really far behind in terms of impact compared to the guys we’re talking about. I’d say Kobe is in the top 12 or so (for now, Jokic and Giannis may surpass him with enough longevity) but you are trying to put him in the top 2 which is crazy.
Prime lebron was pure athleticism and even worse at basketball than now? Do you even know who you stan?
10 times better at basketball than mr FLAWS
shame on you bron fanboi, asking these dumb questions.
You think LeBron was worse in his prime than he is at 40 and you’re calling me dumb? :yaohappy:
You think LeBron was worse in his prime than he is at 40 and you’re calling me dumb? :yaohappy:
Better-at-basketball
Still stiff as ****, lost his athleticism but improved SOME things BBALL wise compared to his younger version where it couldn't get worse lol.
Better-at-basketball
Still stiff as ****, lost his athleticism but improved SOME things BBALL wise compared to his younger version where it couldn't get worse lol.
Yeah I get that you’re really stupid but athleticism is a big part of basketball. Or else we’d say Chris Paul was the best ever.
Baller234
09-06-2025, 02:31 PM
Nah I rank MJ ahead of LeBron. And I can see a case for Kareem. Peak wise you could argue Shaq and Wilt were better than LeBron. I think guys like Curry and Jokic are pretty damn close to LeBron, Curry actually made me question if LeBron was the best player I’d ever seen for a brief time in 2016. I think Wembanyama has the potential to be better than LeBron too. Kobe just was really far behind in terms of impact compared to the guys we’re talking about. I’d say Kobe is in the top 12 or so (for now, Jokic and Giannis may surpass him with enough longevity) but you are trying to put him in the top 2 which is crazy.
Holy shit just when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded.
I didn't predict you would be so eager to put others ahead of Lebron. Respect for that I suppose. Didn't see that coming.
Would have never thought I had more respect for your hero than you did, and this is coming from someone who genuinely doesn't like Bron as a person. :oldlol:
Yeah I get that you’re really stupid but athleticism is a big part of basketball. Or else we’d say Chris Paul was the best ever.
We're judging by bball abilities not physical abilities. Good job 3tard i bet you're still blown away like a 12 year old by his one hand break away dunks
Holy shit just when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded.
I didn't predict you would be so eager to put others ahead of Lebron. Respect for that I suppose. Didn't see that coming.
Would have never thought I had more respect for your hero than you did, and this is coming from someone who genuinely doesn't like Bron as a person. :oldlol:
What did I say that was crazy? Having MJ over LeBron and thinking Shaq and Wilt had arguably goat peaks is pretty common.
We're judging by bball abilities not physical abilities. Good job 3tard i bet you're still blown away like a 12 year old by his one hand break away dunks
Physical abilities are part of basketball :hammerhead:
Why do you think Giannis is so good?
https://cdn.nba.com/manage/2020/01/lebron-iso-flex-scaled.jpg
Losing and flexing after transition dunks.
Better AT basketball. I don't know why you bring up Giannis, there's many many people better AT basketball, there your answer.
And what makes Giannis great is a different discussion.
Better AT basketball. I don't know why you bring up Giannis, there's many many people better AT basketball, there your answer.
And what makes Giannis great is a different discussion.
No there are not many many people better than Giannis at basketball lol. Maybe ~20 in nba history. That’s not “many many”. You thinking athleticism has nothing to do with basketball is comical.
j3lademaster
09-06-2025, 04:50 PM
Better AT basketball. I don't know why you bring up Giannis, there's many many people better AT basketball, there your answer.
And what makes Giannis great is a different discussion.What is the point of this exercise? If you break it down to fundamental skills- dribbling, shooting, passing- Jose Calderon is better than peak Shaq.
What is the point of this exercise? If you break it down to fundamental skills- dribbling, shooting, passing- Jose Calderon is better than peak Shaq.
He is.
And that was the question bro.
He is.
And that was the question bro.
Yeah there’s more to basketball than just those skills though. Try telling anyone Jose Calderon was better at basketball than Shaq :lol
Yeah there’s more to basketball than just those skills though. Try telling anyone Jose Calderon was better at basketball than Shaq :lol
Better at basketball or better player?
It's your dumbass title bro
Better at basketball or better player?
It's your dumbass title bro
THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
I’m in awe of how dumb you are.
j3lademaster
09-06-2025, 05:12 PM
"better at basketball" is just the culmination of every tool at your disposal, be it size, athleticism, skill, iq, etc that helps you affect winning basketball games.
"better at basketball" is just the culmination of every tool at your disposal, be it size, athleticism, skill, iq, etc that helps you affect winning basketball games.
Nah man Jose Calderon was better at basketball than Shaq you don’t get it.
Overdrive
09-06-2025, 06:52 PM
He is.
And that was the question bro.
So someone who's better at fundamental things like shooting, passing, rebounding, etc is the better player? Sure you wanna go that route? You're mking the case for Jokič there.
HoopsNY
09-06-2025, 09:00 PM
You are overstating how bad Jokic is as a defender. I don't think he's anywhere near the other all-time great centers on that end, he doesn't have the athletic ability to contest shots at the rim due to his poor vertical, but he's a smart defender with very good hands, he's always near the top of the league in overall deflections and always makes the right rotations.
I would say he is an average to above average defender, which is around what Bird was during his peak. You could argue Bird was the better defender, but it certainly is not going to make up the advantage Jokic has on offense.
Who classified Bird as being an average defender at his peak when that was when he was known for his help defense? I didn't watch him then (I was just born), and you're younger than me by like 7 years, so I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Bird got DPOY votes in '84 and finished All-Defensive 2nd Team. '84 was a peak year. You could argue he was in his peak in '83 also (2nd in MVP voting), and he was All-Defensive 2nd Team. Now, he was mostly a PF in those years, but defense is defense.
If you're gonna say Bird was average and Jokic is average, then you're saying they're the same.
warriorfan
09-06-2025, 09:55 PM
Who classified Bird as being an average defender at his peak when that was when he was known for his help defense? I didn't watch him then (I was just born), and you're younger than me by like 7 years, so I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Bird got DPOY votes in '84 and finished All-Defensive 2nd Team. '84 was a peak year. You could argue he was in his peak in '83 also (2nd in MVP voting), and he was All-Defensive 2nd Team. Now, he was mostly a PF in those years, but defense is defense.
If you're gonna say Bird was average and Jokic is average, then you're saying they're the same.
That poster likes to make weird claims about players defense who has never watched them play or doesn’t have stats to back it up
He’s basically a guy who parrots dumb shit he reads on realgm and hears from ben taylor
1987_Lakers
09-07-2025, 02:51 AM
Who classified Bird as being an average defender at his peak when that was when he was known for his help defense? I didn't watch him then (I was just born), and you're younger than me by like 7 years, so I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Bird got DPOY votes in '84 and finished All-Defensive 2nd Team. '84 was a peak year. You could argue he was in his peak in '83 also (2nd in MVP voting), and he was All-Defensive 2nd Team. Now, he was mostly a PF in those years, but defense is defense.
If you're gonna say Bird was average and Jokic is average, then you're saying they're the same.
Isn't Jokic known for his help defense as well? To top it off he's always near the top in the league at deflections, great defensive rebounder, & good position defender who is alert out there, he has the IQ Bird had that makes him an effective defender while both have physical limitations that stop them from being elite at that end. I would say peak Bird was the better defender, but it's not some crazy huge edge. Jokic does have a noticeable edge as an offensive player though.
1987_Lakers
09-07-2025, 02:52 AM
That poster likes to make weird claims about players defense who has never watched them play or doesn’t have stats to back it up
He’s basically a guy who parrots dumb shit he reads on realgm and hears from ben taylor
I've watched a shit ton of 80's games before Ben Taylor was even a thing. One thing about Boston is Ainge & DJ would rarely dunk, Parish ran like the wind on a fast break. Sichting never missed from mid-range. Ainge was kinda underrated as a combo guard, labeled a 2, but could be the main ball-handler if asked to.
You are still mad I called out your horrific Kobe game 7 take.
warriorfan
09-07-2025, 05:54 AM
I've watched a shit ton of 80's games before Ben Taylor was even a thing. One thing about Boston is Ainge & DJ would rarely dunk, Parish ran like the wind on a fast break. Sichting never missed from mid-range. Ainge was kinda underrated as a combo guard, labeled a 2, but could be the main ball-handler if asked to.
You are still mad I called out your horrific Kobe game 7 take.
This is so rudimentary lmao
Tbh I didn’t see your response to my post about game 7 Kobe vs Boston and I’m not about to go look it up.
You are a low iq guy who couldn’t tell the difference between a basketball hoop and your asshole even if your life depended on it.
Legit have zero interest in your input.
1987_Lakers
09-07-2025, 09:56 AM
This is so rudimentary lmao
Tbh I didn’t see your response to my post about game 7 Kobe vs Boston and I’m not about to go look it up.
You are a low iq guy who couldn’t tell the difference between a basketball hoop and your asshole even if your life depended on it.
Legit have zero interest in your input.
Sure you didn't. :lol
Legit have zero interest in your input.
You were up at 3am posting about me. You seem interested. lol
Im going to wait for you to say you were up early to get a workout before work, but we all know you were tweaked out on meth.
HoopsNY
09-08-2025, 07:46 AM
Isn't Jokic known for his help defense as well? To top it off he's always near the top in the league at deflections, great defensive rebounder, & good position defender who is alert out there, he has the IQ Bird had that makes him an effective defender while both have physical limitations that stop them from being elite at that end. I would say peak Bird was the better defender, but it's not some crazy huge edge. Jokic does have a noticeable edge as an offensive player though.
This is what I was referring to before about recency bias. It's easy to make these claims while Jokic is in the midst of his peak. It should also be noted that he only finished top 3 in deflections this past season IIRC. I don't think it's fair to hinge the discussion on a subset of a category to determine Jokic's defensive acumen based on one season of play when he's ten years into his career.
I'd also take issue with deflections as a single primary statistic (one that is granular), because it's really an extension of steals. I'm sure if deflections existed before 2016 (and back in the 80s), Magic would have probably had a few seasons where he was top 3 or so. He won the steals title twice, but I don't think anyone considered him as being better or even on the same level as Bird defensively.
Bird led the league in DWS 4 times. Only 4 other players have done that in league history, and he secured 3 All-Defensive selections early on in his career. By the mid to late 80s, he was more of help defender but highly regarded from what I've read and heard from others.
That can easily span 8-9 seasons. It's hard for me to understand how one season for Jokic (assuming being an above average defender hinges on deflections) is a parallel.
SouBeachTalents
09-08-2025, 11:17 AM
And I'd counter argue saying the notion we just throwaway defense and only hone in on numbers...is even more comical. I mean, why watch or play the game? We can just punch-in numbers on a calculator lol. Nobody argued Kobe's defense "made up" for his shooting. What I'm challenging is your ridiculous claim that these games were "inarguably poor" while you simply regurgitate stats.
Kobe began his prime sometime during the middle of that 3-peat. You acknowledge that, ok fine, but still only posted his numbers from 2003 lol. You also removed Kobe's first 2 years off the bench, and then included non prime years like 1999 and 2000. Again no problem, but I was strictly talking about Kobe's prime.
You absolutely added additional criteria :lol Kobe had alright numbers in some of those, but you still made a point to talk about his team losing and getting crushed as favorites. You concluded that only like 2 games were 'good". Its disingenuous. Just say Kobe has a different standard than your favorite player, and stop beating around the bush.
I thought we were strictly debating individual performance. Now this dude is talking about LA "losing by 13" lol
Just to emphasize how ridiculous your point about his defense is, here's how many points the Lakers gave up each time they were eliminated
2003: 110
2004: 100
2006: 121
2007: 119
2008: 131
2011: 122
2012: 106
I'm sure Kobe's defense was making all the difference in the world in these games :lol
If you want to focus solely on his prime years, 2001-2012, his elimination game numbers are 25/6/3 on 51%TS, nearly identical if you include '99 & '00.
And I'm adding the outcome because Kobe was favored in most of these series ('03, '04, 08, '11) and his team got fvcking eviscerated, losses by 28, 36 & 39, and they were losing by 28 with 5 minutes to go in '04 before cutting that in half. In addition to playing terribly in these games, his team, as the series favorite, got absolutely destroyed. I think that's relevant.
So you double down on your absurd take and yet again in some odd, passive-aggressive manner...bring up team performance. Since when did individual defense equal a team's ENTIRE output? Are you under the impression its Kobe vs 5 other starters? :oldlol:
I mean think about your logic. You'd rather cling to LA losing by some arbitrary number than account for individual defense. In a topic debating singular performance. Weird hill to die on lol
SouBeachTalents
09-08-2025, 01:49 PM
So you double down on your absurd take and yet again in some odd, passive-aggressive manner...bring up team performance. Since when did individual defense equal a team's ENTIRE output? Are you under the impression its Kobe vs 5 other starters? :oldlol:
I mean think about your logic. You'd rather cling to LA losing by some arbitrary number than account for individual defense. In a topic debating singular performance. Weird hill to die on lol
Show me proof of this impactful defense Kobe was exhibiting in these games that offsets his often underwhelming-dismal offensive performance. I doubt you're going to find it in the games I listed where these teams scored an avalanche on the Lakers, you won't find it in '02 when Bibby was scoring at will in Game 7. You were the one making the claim Kobe's defense needed to be factored in, show me where it made an impact, is it just the Game 7 against Boston?
Show me proof of this impactful defense Kobe was exhibiting in these games that offsets his often underwhelming-dismal offensive performance. I doubt you're going to find it in the games I listed where these teams scored an avalanche on the Lakers, you won't find it in '02 when Bibby was scoring at will in Game 7. You were the one making the claim Kobe's defense needed to be factored in, show me where it made an impact, is it just the Game 7 against Boston?
Post the full games. :confusedshrug: If they aren't free or available to stream then don't ask me for a ridiculous request.
Your claim is that Kobe's defense had no impact. Stick to that. I absolutely disagree with this notion, considering 1. the praise Kobe received from his peers (Rajon Rondo's thoughts on Kobe's game 7 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/rajon-rondo-on-how-kobe-bryant-outplayed-him-in-game-7-of-the-2010-nba-finals-he-affected-the-game-in-so-many-different-ways/ar-AA1rnAoJ)) and 2. his reputation for giving consistent effort on that end in big games
I'm still wondering why a good performance is negated because a players team was favored...or because they were "down by double digits and then lost by 7 points" lol. After you justify that then explain why half of LeBrons "great" elimination games are excluded :lol
Soundwave
09-08-2025, 03:06 PM
Think that's pretty close to a tie and the poll reflects that.
Kobe's issues are not his skillset, his skillset and abilities are impeccable, probably one of the most skilled players ever. It was his mentality and lack of maturity with his game at times that could get him into trouble.
Jokic obviously has a great skill set though his athleticism is some what lacking and he simply can't be the 1 on 1 type of iso scoring threat that Kobe is due to a lack of speed/agility, but for his size he is still quite good in those areas. Passing ability is obviously off the charts.
Baller234
09-08-2025, 08:14 PM
Think that's pretty close to a tie and the poll reflects that.
Kobe's issues are not his skillset, his skillset and abilities are impeccable, probably one of the most skilled players ever. It was his mentality and lack of maturity with his game at times that could get him into trouble.
Jokic obviously has a great skill set though his athleticism is some what lacking and he simply can't be the 1 on 1 type of iso scoring threat that Kobe is due to a lack of speed/agility, but for his size he is still quite good in those areas. Passing ability is obviously off the charts.
This is why Kobe's better though.
You said it, Kobe's only flaw was his ego. Yolk's flaws are physical and tangible. His flaw is mobility. He's a great scorer in the post but he can't break you down one on one from just anywhere on the court. When it's the final few minutes and the game slows down, his weaknesses really get exposed.
Yolk brings a lot to the table sure, but if you're building a team you could find someone else to run point. You could find someone else to score inside. You could find someone else to rebound. What Kobe brings to the table is just a lot harder to replace, and that's the ability to close.
https://youtu.be/8wJUA9m82D8?si=mMtB0xI4e-nWk6h7
Poor bawler :lol
This is why Kobe's better though.
You said it, Kobe's only flaw was his ego. Yolk's flaws are physical and tangible. His flaw is mobility. He's a great scorer in the post but he can't break you down one on one from just anywhere on the court. When it's the final few minutes and the game slows down, his weaknesses really get exposed.
Yolk brings a lot to the table sure, but if you're building a team you could find someone else to run point. You could find someone else to score inside. You could find someone else to rebound. What Kobe brings to the table is just a lot harder to replace, and that's the ability to close.
IMO, you place too much emphasis on the ability to close. You said it yourself above but Jokic can run point, score (inside AND out) and rebound - all in one player. And ego, selfishness, lack of passing to teammates are very big pluses for Jokic and very big minuses for Kobe. Ok, so Jokic is slow - so were a lot of big men like Moses Malone (3 MVPs) and Shaq (not at the beginning).
Baller234
09-10-2025, 11:37 AM
IMO, you place too much emphasis on the ability to close. You said it yourself above but Jokic can run point, score (inside AND out) and rebound - all in one player. And ego, selfishness, lack of passing to teammates are very big pluses for Jokic and very big minuses for Kobe. Ok, so Jokic is slow - so were a lot of big men like Moses Malone (3 MVPs) and Shaq (not at the beginning).
Yolk is a versatile player yes, but what he brings to the table can be replaced. You might need a combination of players to do it, but it can be replaced. A team with a good point guard and a good big doesn't need Yolk. Not like you're missing anything on defense.
But very few players can truly close like Kobe. Very few players even wanna be that guy in the first place.
And yes Yolk and those guys were slow, which means you cannot just give them the ball anywhere on the court and let them go to work. They need the ball in their spot first. It's why Caruso was able to give Yolk fits. He kept him out of his spot.
Kobe doesn't have "spots". You could inbound the ball to Kobe and let him do the rest. Sure you could get that from other great scorers that can go for 25-40 in the playoffs... but with Kobe you're getting 35-50. Plus you're getting a suicidal competitor on top of that. A guy that hustles on defense and leads by example.
Yolk is a versatile player yes, but what he brings to the table can be replaced. You might need a combination of players to do it, but it can be replaced. A team with a good point guard and a good big doesn't need Yolk. Not like you're missing anything on defense.
But very few players can truly close like Kobe. Very few players even wanna be that guy in the first place.
And yes Yolk and those guys were slow, which means you cannot just give them the ball anywhere on the court and let them go to work. They need the ball in their spot first. It's why Caruso was able to give Yolk fits. He kept him out of his spot.
Kobe doesn't have "spots". You could inbound the ball to Kobe and let him do the rest. Sure you could get that from other great scorers that can go for 25-40 in the playoffs... but with Kobe you're getting 35-50. Plus you're getting a suicidal competitor on top of that. A guy that hustles on defense and leads by example.
Nice fanfiction. In reality Jokic scores better than Kobe in the playoffs.
Kobe's definitely made some incredible shots in crunchtime. The degree of difficulty, over double teams etc. Just a really good TOUGH shot maker. I'll say this though... I think his reputation in crunchtime does get overblown, especially in the playoffs. There were players during his prime that were equally and statistically better in the clutch. Wade, Dirk and some years contrary to narratives, LeBron.
If the criteria for clutch shot making is 5 minutes left and down/up 5 or tied...yes, there are players who were equally as clutch. If the criteria is less than 24 seconds to tie or take the lead, same thing.
People can say both are talented. Joker is more versatile and involves his teammates to his plays, can probably even play as a sf if needed. That's why he stands out, esp. for someone his size. Otoh, kobe leans on being traditional, was obsessed in making shots and is like a mediocre jordan who used to be so selfish more or less.
But sure, they're just retarded stans.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=827668&dateline=1624237688 (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPZqPRPHIF2xVI5uiUFQ7DcZyo3SNqM MQAlw&usqp=CAU)
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 07:57 AM
Kobe is becoming underrated on this board and elsewhere. People are bringing up inefficiencies way too much and not considering the gauntlet that he typically had to run through, or the fact that he played a considerable amount of his prime in the height of the defensive era.
Furthermore, his overall offensive efficiency wasn't some anomaly given the time period.
PS Kobe '00-'10: 28 PPG on 45/34/82 splits (56% TS%)
PS TMac '00-'08: 29 PPG on 43/30/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Iverson '00-08: 30 PPG on 40/33/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Sprewell '00-'04: 20 PPG on 42/36/78 splits (50% TS%)
PS Allen '00-'10: 19 PPG on 44/40/90 splits (58% TS%)
PS Vince '00-'10: 23 PPG on 41/31/79 splits (51% TS%)
PS LeBron '06-'10: 29 PPG on 46/32/74 splits (56% TS%)
PS Manu '03-'10: 16 PPG on 44/38/83 splits (58% TS%)
PS Wade '04-'10: 26 PPG on 48/35/79 splits (57% TS%)
What are we really arguing here? Clearly during Kobe's prime, his efficiency was relative to his peers. And I'd argue that it was usually on the tougher road, given he played the entire time in the Western Conference. T-Mac, for example, faced one top 5 defense (Detroit) in that entire spread. Kobe faced two top 5 defenses just in 2000 alone. And that doesn't even account for the mix of offense that those teams brought to the table.
I'm biased, but I believe the 2000s was the greatest era we ever saw. It brought all the elements of historical basketball all into one, with the highest level of guard play we had ever seen. Kobe likely stands on top of that hill, and that means a lot.
tpols
09-11-2025, 08:54 AM
GOAT.
https://youtu.be/hCH-owsrC-A?si=Zl9L7yZ2fimdC8rg
A lot of yall just dont know who Kobe was.
tpols
09-11-2025, 09:00 AM
Kobes winning the poll.
:oldlol:
You guys need to make some alts.
Kobe stans are notorious for having alts.
SouBeachTalents
09-11-2025, 11:29 AM
I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that
Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS
T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS
Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS
Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS
Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS
Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS
I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.
j3lademaster
09-11-2025, 11:50 AM
I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that
Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS
T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS
Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS
Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS
Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS
Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS
I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.
Tmac has become underrated. 20 something years ago Tmac vs Kobe was a real discussion, and if you actually use 3ball's criteria which is 'max defensive attention' with minimal offensive help Tmac exemplified it and still delivered solid performances. He had Dirk in cuffs during the houston mavs series and the only reason Dirk was even able to get his shooting percentage past 30 that series was feasting on Ryan Bowen and Scott Padgett. McGrady looked all defensive first team when he wanted to.
SouBeachTalents
09-11-2025, 11:57 AM
Tmac has become underrated. 20 something years ago Tmac vs Kobe was a real discussion, and if you actually use 3ball's criteria which is 'max defensive attention' with minimal offensive help Tmac exemplified it and still delivered solid performances. He had Dirk in cuffs during the houston mavs series and the only reason Dirk was even able to get his shooting percentage past 30 that series was feasting on Ryan Bowen and Scott Padgett. McGrady looked all defensive first team when he wanted to.
I feel like between roster construction/injury, T-Mac was arguably the unluckiest player of all time. He was trapped on legitimately the worst rosters I've ever seen in Orlando, then in Houston injuries started to affect his game while Yao constantly missed time.
If Doc doesn't tell Duncan his family can't fly on the team plane, they would've been battling Shaq & Kobe in some epic Finals.
j3lademaster
09-11-2025, 12:09 PM
I feel like between roster construction/injury, T-Mac was arguably the unluckiest player of all time. He was trapped on legitimately the worst rosters I've ever seen in Orlando, then in Houston injuries started to affect his game while Yao constantly missed time.
If Doc doesn't tell Duncan his family can't fly on the team plane, they would've been battling Shaq & Kobe in some epic Finals.That's always been one of the weirdest stories for me. I get Doc was trying to assert his authority, but it's Tim Duncan who is one of the least problematic stars ever. And the Spurs, an incredibly well run organization with a coach who famously holds his own stars accountable is letting Duncan do it with no problems, why not Orlando?
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 12:12 PM
I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that
Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS
T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS
Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS
Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS
Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS
Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS
I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.
I was intentional to use 2000-10 as a spread because it aligned with Kobe's prime and quite frankly, just about everyone else's. Secondly, I didn't use those years for every single player. For example, TMac's last postseason that was meaningful was 2008.
Manu didn't need to have the volume. The point was that his efficiency wasn't leaps and bounds above Kobe's.
You could adjust for Ray Allen's but I wouldn't stop at 2007. I think 2008-10 are still included in his prime despite production falling, but that was due to being on a superteam. Even if you use 2000-07 for his PS, then he's at 58% TS%.
And I specifically focused on the postseason because that's what ultimately matters. Kobe's efficiency was in some cases better, but mostly on par with the elite players of his time.
Either way, the efficiency numbers are blown out of proportion. How many series were lost during that decade that we can truly pin on Kobe for his overshooting and poor efficiency? Maybe 1?
Lastly, I didn't use other statistics like rebounds or assists because that wasn't the point of my comment. I started by discussing efficiency because he's consistently targeted for it and I think he has become underrated in this forum, which I think is unfair.
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 01:00 PM
I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that
Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS
T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS
Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS
Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS
Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS
Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS
I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.
Forgot to mention, I added guards like Spree just to show a pattern. Here's some other guards/wings:
PS Melo '05-'10: 26 PPG on 53% TS%
PS Payton '00-'03: 23 PPG on 48% TS%
PS Peja '01-'07: 19 PPG on 54% TS%
PS Hamilton '03-'09: 21 PPG on 52% TS%
I avoided posting splits because they'd just show more of the same and it's actually a lot worse for these guys. Kobe's supposed shooting woes are overblown.
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 03:57 PM
Here are the NBA's TS% in the playoffs between 2000-2010:
2000: 51.7%
2001: 51.1%
2002: 51.4%
2003: 52.5%
2004: 50.0%
2005: 53.4%
2006: 54.7%
2007: 53.0%
2008: 53.2%
2009: 54.4%
2010: 54.3%
It seems that the league hovered somewhere around 52-53% during this time, which is about a rTS of +3.5 or so when it comes to Kobe.
Looking at the Jokic's, his TS% 61% whereas the league hovered around 56-57% in the playoffs...his rTS would be around +4.5 let's say. It's higher than Kobe's, but I think Jokic benefits from a lot more close range shots 10 ft and under, which skews the data a little. Given all considerations, I think the gap isn't as wide as I had originally believed.
This isn't to say that Kobe is on the same level offensively as Jokic. He isn't. But I think it helps to clarify the inefficiency argument at least, which I think is overused far too often to not just criticize Kobe, but to make him appear as if he was some net negative overall.
Carbine
09-11-2025, 09:29 PM
I personally don't think this is close.
Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.
Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.
Baller234
09-11-2025, 10:13 PM
Here are the NBA's TS% in the playoffs between 2000-2010:
2000: 51.7%
2001: 51.1%
2002: 51.4%
2003: 52.5%
2004: 50.0%
2005: 53.4%
2006: 54.7%
2007: 53.0%
2008: 53.2%
2009: 54.4%
2010: 54.3%
It seems that the league hovered somewhere around 52-53% during this time, which is about a rTS of +3.5 or so when it comes to Kobe.
Looking at the Jokic's, his TS% 61% whereas the league hovered around 56-57% in the playoffs...his rTS would be around +4.5 let's say. It's higher than Kobe's, but I think Jokic benefits from a lot more close range shots 10 ft and under, which skews the data a little. Given all considerations, I think the gap isn't as wide as I had originally believed.
This isn't to say that Kobe is on the same level offensively as Jokic. He isn't. But I think it helps to clarify the inefficiency argument at least, which I think is overused far too often to not just criticize Kobe, but to make him appear as if he was some net negative overall.
I appreciate you putting in the time and the work and doing the research. I think it's obvious at this point that the efficiency dorks are lost in the sauce.
But in regard to the bolded and what defines the best offensive player:
The best offensive player, to me, is the one who can instantly create offense. It's what gave OKC the edge over every other team. Jalen Williams is good but he's not THAT good. It's not like having him as your 2nd best player means your all but GUARANTEED to win a championship. OKC had the edge in the playoffs because at the end of the day they had a bucket getter who couldn't be stopped.
As you can see I have a lot of respect for SGA's game. I think he gets away with a lot of carries, but his finesse and his skill is undeniable. He's as talented as anyone that has ever played the position. Top 10 for sure. Maybe even Top 7-8, but definitely Top 10. There's no question he has a legitimate claim for being the best offensive player in basketball right now.
And yet having said all that, as much as I respect his game, Kobe was even better. More natural. More aggressive.
Carbine
09-11-2025, 10:30 PM
SGA is definitely not as talented as anyone to ever play his position.
He is a SKILLFUL player with very good length for his position with decent athletic ability.
Lebron.... Shaq..... Jordan....
These guys are goat talent level. SGA belongs nowhere near them.
Baller234
09-11-2025, 10:32 PM
SGA is definitely not as talented as anyone to ever play his position.
He is a SKILLFUL player with very good length for his position with decent athletic ability.
Lebron.... Shaq..... Jordan....
These guys are goat talent level. SGA belongs nowhere near them.
Lol no, I meant he is as talented as any SG ever.
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 10:54 PM
I personally don't think this is close.
Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.
Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.
Offensively? I agree. Jokic's ability to dish the roc puts him at a level above Kobe. This can't be denied. That being said, I think Kobe's defensive ability more than makes up for it. I also think Kobe's playmaking ability is severely underrated.
In the first 3 peat, Kobe was the primary playmaker, regardless of what assists say. He was also the team's closer despite playing alongside peak Shaq.
But my going through the analysis on efficiency wasn't for me to prove that Kobe > Jokic offensively. I truly don't believe that he is. What I wanted to highlight is that people on this forum have an obsession with Kobe's efficiency whereas they're not accounting for a myriad of factors.
We can't ignore the era he played in and the fact that he was either better or on the same level relative to his peers — guys who were at the same position or similar, and played in pinnacle of the best era in the 75+ years of the NBA that was also an era that saw the highest levels of defensive intensity, particularly on the perimeter. When you couple that with the fact that he did this entirely in the Western Conference, it just makes it all the more impressive.
His rTS in the playoffs during this stretch is also impressive. I showed how he managed to post such numbers even though he consistently faced elite defensive schemes. Guys who were compared to him, like T-Mac, weren't doing it against the same levels of defensive competition. When you add in the fact that he did that against teams who also had great offenses, it just adds to the mix.
These points are almost always left out of the conversation. And it's also impressive that he did what he did despite consistent injuries. Kobe laid it all out on the court. Whether it was the ankle, shoulder, shooting hand, hips, knees, etc, Kobe still managed to do what he did.
So who has amassed such a resume, on both ends of the court, while playing hurt half of the time — 5 championships, 7 finals appearances, and being a finals threat nearly every year? A handful of guys fit this mix, but none did it in the best era while also being in the best conference; not Bird, Magic, Kareem, Hakeem, LeBron, or even Jordan. The only one who did this is probably Duncan.
Kobe isn't above any of these guys, but he's in the conversation, and his naysayers won't admit that much...cause ya know....eFfiCiEnCy!
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 10:56 PM
I appreciate you putting in the time and the work and doing the research. I think it's obvious at this point that the efficiency dorks are lost in the sauce.
But in regard to the bolded and what defines the best offensive player:
The best offensive player, to me, is the one who can instantly create offense. It's what gave OKC the edge over every other team. Jalen Williams is good but he's not THAT good. It's not like having him as your 2nd best player means your all but GUARANTEED to win a championship. OKC had the edge in the playoffs because at the end of the day they had a bucket getter who couldn't be stopped.
As you can see I have a lot of respect for SGA's game. I think he gets away with a lot of carries, but his finesse and his skill is undeniable. He's as talented as anyone that has ever played the position. Top 10 for sure. Maybe even Top 7-8, but definitely Top 10. There's no question he has a legitimate claim for being the best offensive player in basketball right now.
And yet having said all that, as much as I respect his game, Kobe was even better. More natural. More aggressive.
Thank you. Just wanna be clear, I don't agree with you, lol. Not saying your analysis doesn't have merit. I do think what Jokic is doing is ridiculous. And it's simply a step above what Kobe did. I just wanted to stick it to the haters. :lol
Carbine
09-11-2025, 11:00 PM
Lol no, I meant he is as talented as any SG ever.
He absolutely 100 percent is not as talented as Jordan.
TMac, Clyde, etc are all level or levels above SGA in terms of raw physical talent. A lot of people are.
SGA is as good as he is because of his skills and IQ.
HoopsNY
09-11-2025, 11:04 PM
I personally don't think this is close.
Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.
Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.
One last point....if peak Kobe is in this era...then he's dominating, probably putting up 30-35 a night on better efficiency. The spacing would give him more open looks on the perimeter and the clear path to the basket would just be NBA Live entertainment.
Give him a big who produces similar to Murray and we're likely talking about multiple championships. If Tatum is putting up numbers like 30/9/6 in some seasons, what's Kobe doing? And I think we can all agree Kobe is a better scorer, defender, and passer than Tatum is.
If Jokic is in Kobe's era, drop the spacing, drop the 3 point attempts, slow the game down....yea, he'll dominate, but we're not seeing triple double numbers at all. We're seeing Dirk like numbers with more assists. Couple him with a guard akin to Gasol production and it's also good for a chip, but can he produce 10+ years with the same level of success as Kobe? Maybe. I'm just not convinced......yet.
Baller234
09-11-2025, 11:08 PM
He absolutely 100 percent is not as talented as Jordan.
TMac, Clyde, etc are all level or levels above SGA in terms of raw physical talent. A lot of people are.
SGA is as good as he is because of his skills and IQ.
Uh, my guy. I didn't say best, I said top 10. Obviously I don't think he's more talented than MJ.
You are smoking glass if you don't think he's more talented than Clyde though. Jordan was leaps more talented than Clyde and every great SG that came after him modeled their game after him. SGA is an offshoot of an offshoot of MJ. Clyde is old software.
warriorfan
09-12-2025, 12:11 AM
Kobe is becoming underrated on this board and elsewhere. People are bringing up inefficiencies way too much and not considering the gauntlet that he typically had to run through, or the fact that he played a considerable amount of his prime in the height of the defensive era.
Furthermore, his overall offensive efficiency wasn't some anomaly given the time period.
PS Kobe '00-'10: 28 PPG on 45/34/82 splits (56% TS%)
PS TMac '00-'08: 29 PPG on 43/30/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Iverson '00-08: 30 PPG on 40/33/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Sprewell '00-'04: 20 PPG on 42/36/78 splits (50% TS%)
PS Allen '00-'10: 19 PPG on 44/40/90 splits (58% TS%)
PS Vince '00-'10: 23 PPG on 41/31/79 splits (51% TS%)
PS LeBron '06-'10: 29 PPG on 46/32/74 splits (56% TS%)
PS Manu '03-'10: 16 PPG on 44/38/83 splits (58% TS%)
PS Wade '04-'10: 26 PPG on 48/35/79 splits (57% TS%)
What are we really arguing here? Clearly during Kobe's prime, his efficiency was relative to his peers. And I'd argue that it was usually on the tougher road, given he played the entire time in the Western Conference. T-Mac, for example, faced one top 5 defense (Detroit) in that entire spread. Kobe faced two top 5 defenses just in 2000 alone. And that doesn't even account for the mix of offense that those teams brought to the table.
I'm biased, but I believe the 2000s was the greatest era we ever saw. It brought all the elements of historical basketball all into one, with the highest level of guard play we had ever seen. Kobe likely stands on top of that hill, and that means a lot.
People are obsessed with doing these either disingenuous or ignorant box score comparisons across vastly different eras. Check league average in Kobe years, check league average efficiency. To try to write off Kobe is trying to write off an entire era of basketball. They are low key trying to give the 2000’s the 1960’s treatment. Everyone in the NBA sucked back then, that is their spin.
brownmamba00
09-12-2025, 01:55 PM
Sengun took a dump on Jokic just the other day:oldlol:
j3lademaster
09-12-2025, 02:03 PM
Sengun took a dump on Jokic just the other day:oldlol:
I’ve seen Michael Finley shit on Jordan before. What does that prove?
brownmamba00
09-12-2025, 02:50 PM
I’ve seen Michael Finley shit on Jordan before. What does that prove?
Jokic is a lame that rides horses in the summer don't you dare compare him to the black Bruce Wayne.
John8204
09-12-2025, 07:26 PM
Well it took a month but I'm glad common sense finally put Kobe over Jokic
Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol
Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol
Impact stats adjust for that.
Dim :(
Impact stats adjust for that.
Dim :(
Which impact stats take defense into account...across multiple years :confusedshrug:
Are you ok?
Which impact stats take defense into account...across multiple years :confusedshrug:
Are you ok?
They all take defense into account? All the big ones like RAPM, LEBRON, and EPM at least.
They all take defense into account? All the big ones like RAPM, LEBRON, and EPM at least.
Obviously they take defense into account. I'm talking about across eras, hence Kobe vs Joker. We don't have data that contextualizes Joker's impact with 2000 defensive stats. And the 2000s is arguably the best defensive era of all time.
Bringing up "RAPM" is cool for a 3-5 year sample, and within that time frame. But just using it to compare players from different eras isn't smart. Whoever told you otherwise did you a big disservice lol
Baller234
09-13-2025, 12:37 AM
Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol
Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.
"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."
warriorfan
09-13-2025, 01:38 AM
Op is a turd
j3lademaster
09-13-2025, 11:39 AM
Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.
"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."
We’re all biased, some more than others, so there needs to have some kind of objective measure in a debate. The eye test is only so reliable when people only see what they want to see(like Jokić not being able to take and hit big shots), plus there are so many games played you need data to get the full picture. I mean, Lebron has 40k points and 11k assists not even counting playoffs; how do we account for all of them, or even a majority? At some point we have to pull up the shot charts and shooting percentages, especially if we want a fair discussion. Stats matter, that’s why you want Sam Presti, Brad Steven’s scouting talent for your front office and not Jordan, Isiah and Magic.
j3lademaster
09-13-2025, 11:42 AM
Jokic is a lame that rides horses in the summer don't you dare compare him to the black Bruce Wayne.
I didn’t compare them, just pointing out the flaw in that logic. MJ > Jokic, and Sengun > Finley. MJ should have no business ever being outplayed by a Michael Finley tier player… going by your logic ofc.
Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.
"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."
True, but let me preface this by saying I'm not anti stats. Numbers definitely matter its just I think people need to use them more responsibly. I mean damn...at least attempt to talk basketball :lol
Regarding who's better between the two? Its fairly close imo. I'd probably take Jokic because of his impact on offense (gets cleaner looks because of his height and is a tremendous passer). I'm not mad at anyone picking Kobe though.
warriorfan
09-13-2025, 01:16 PM
I guess the nbs should just delete their entire archive of games and consolidate them into an excel spreadsheet
I guess the nbs should just delete their entire archive of games and consolidate them into an excel spreadsheet
:yaohappy:
warriorfan
09-13-2025, 01:32 PM
Stat nerds are simply the laziest individuals to ever walk the earth
Instead of playing the game for thousands of hours and watching thousands of hours of play, they think they can shortcut all of that by comparing two numbers and seeing which one is higher than the other
lol.
Obviously they take defense into account. I'm talking about across eras, hence Kobe vs Joker. We don't have data that contextualizes Joker's impact with 2000 defensive stats. And the 2000s is arguably the best defensive era of all time.
Bringing up "RAPM" is cool for a 3-5 year sample, and within that time frame. But just using it to compare players from different eras isn't smart. Whoever told you otherwise did you a big disservice lol
So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?
warriorfan
09-13-2025, 04:49 PM
So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?
it’s better than not educating yourself and taking random numbers and thinking you know it all
So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?
When I compare players from separate eras, I'm using film and breaking the game down way before I get into numbers. You should already be cognizant of that for the reasons I mentioned... Defense being one of the biggest.
HoopsNY
09-14-2025, 12:26 PM
Kobe is becoming underrated on this board and elsewhere. People are bringing up inefficiencies way too much and not considering the gauntlet that he typically had to run through, or the fact that he played a considerable amount of his prime in the height of the defensive era.
Furthermore, his overall offensive efficiency wasn't some anomaly given the time period.
PS Kobe '00-'10: 28 PPG on 45/34/82 splits (56% TS%)
PS TMac '00-'08: 29 PPG on 43/30/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Iverson '00-08: 30 PPG on 40/33/77 splits (52% TS%)
PS Sprewell '00-'04: 20 PPG on 42/36/78 splits (50% TS%)
PS Allen '00-'10: 19 PPG on 44/40/90 splits (58% TS%)
PS Vince '00-'10: 23 PPG on 41/31/79 splits (51% TS%)
PS LeBron '06-'10: 29 PPG on 46/32/74 splits (56% TS%)
PS Manu '03-'10: 16 PPG on 44/38/83 splits (58% TS%)
PS Wade '04-'10: 26 PPG on 48/35/79 splits (57% TS%)
What are we really arguing here? Clearly during Kobe's prime, his efficiency was relative to his peers. And I'd argue that it was usually on the tougher road, given he played the entire time in the Western Conference. T-Mac, for example, faced one top 5 defense (Detroit) in that entire spread. Kobe faced two top 5 defenses just in 2000 alone. And that doesn't even account for the mix of offense that those teams brought to the table.
I'm biased, but I believe the 2000s was the greatest era we ever saw. It brought all the elements of historical basketball all into one, with the highest level of guard play we had ever seen. Kobe likely stands on top of that hill, and that means a lot.
Made a mistake here, it should be 55% for Kobe, and not 56%. I also looked up some other elite guys and here's what I found.
PS Duncan '01-'10: 55% TS%
PS Garnett '00-'10: 53% TS%
PS Shaq '00-'06: 56% TS%
What's telling is how similar Kobe's performances were to his peers. In some cases better. I'm actually surprised Shaq's TS% was similar. LeBron's sat at 56% also. Duncan is also surprising to me. His is roughly the same as Kobe's. And these are big men who were regularly taking higher percentage shots.
I'm beginning to think that Kobe wasn't inefficient at all. I watched his whole career. The conversations I recall having was his overshooting, and not necessarily inefficiency. Iverson was always the inefficient one IIRC.
Baller234
09-14-2025, 11:19 PM
We’re all biased, some more than others, so there needs to have some kind of objective measure in a debate. The eye test is only so reliable when people only see what they want to see(like Jokić not being able to take and hit big shots), plus there are so many games played you need data to get the full picture. I mean, Lebron has 40k points and 11k assists not even counting playoffs; how do we account for all of them, or even a majority? At some point we have to pull up the shot charts and shooting percentages, especially if we want a fair discussion. Stats matter, that’s why you want Sam Presti, Brad Steven’s scouting talent for your front office and not Jordan, Isiah and Magic.
Uh.. the objective measure is results and accomplishments. How good and how dominant they were relative to their competition. How instrumental were they when it came to actually winning. Great this guy is more "efficient"... and? That is your grand thesis? He's efficient therefore he's better? Sorry but you don't play for efficiency, you play to win.
Kobe was a key ingredient in FIVE championships. He was either a 1a or a 1b, which means NONE of those teams win without him. The years he was 1a, he did NOT have a stacked team. Of all the teams I've seen win a championship in my lifetime, those Laker teams rank NOWHERE NEAR the top.
So for the sake of just being nice, I will even leave out the Shaq rings. They definitely, ABSOLUTELY count but let's put them aside just for fun. That means Kobe as a 1a went to the finals three straight years and won TWICE, and they beat a REALLY GOOD Celtics team.
Yolk has to win AT LEAST one more to really make the conversation interesting. He has to show he can win under MULTIPLE sets of conditions.
You need open heart surgery. You have two choices:
- 5x best surgeon award winner.
- 1x best surgeon award winner.
Who do you want performing your surgery.
j3lademaster
09-15-2025, 12:43 AM
Uh.. the objective measure is results and accomplishments. How good and how dominant they were relative to their competition. How instrumental were they when it came to actually winning. Great this guy is more "efficient"... and? That is your grand thesis? He's efficient therefore he's better? Sorry but you don't play for efficiency, you play to win. Results are measured by stats....
Kobe was a key ingredient in FIVE championships. He was either a 1a or a 1b, which means NONE of those teams win without him. The years he was 1a, he did NOT have a stacked team. Of all the teams I've seen win a championship in my lifetime, those Laker teams rank NOWHERE NEAR the top.
So for the sake of just being nice, I will even leave out the Shaq rings. They definitely, ABSOLUTELY count but let's put them aside just for fun. That means Kobe as a 1a went to the finals three straight years and won TWICE, and they beat a REALLY GOOD Celtics team.
Yolk has to win AT LEAST one more to really make the conversation interesting. He has to show he can win under MULTIPLE sets of conditions.
You need open heart surgery. You have two choices:
- 5x best surgeon award winner.
- 1x best surgeon award winner.
Who do you want performing your surgery.Well, you want the surgeon who won more recently, because he has information and knowledge the other surgeon wouldn't have been privy to. It's a terrible comparison anyway because you're using a hypothetical individual accolade. To go to another end of the spectrum, Barry Sanders never won shit, but he's still one of the goat runningbacks. Winning championships in basketball is probably closer to football than tennis or boxing.
Baller234
09-15-2025, 08:51 AM
Results are measured by stats....
Well, you want the surgeon who won more recently, because he has information and knowledge the other surgeon wouldn't have been privy to. It's a terrible comparison anyway because you're using a hypothetical individual accolade. To go to another end of the spectrum, Barry Sanders never won shit, but he's still one of the goat runningbacks. Winning championships in basketball is probably closer to football than tennis or boxing.
You to play to win. Not for efficiency, not for stats. Kobe's dominance has yielded infinitely better results than Yolk's up until this point of his career. I don't care about regular season MVP's and never did. I don't care about advanced stats, charts or graph tabulations. I care about winning. I care about rangz.
If you wanna be in the elite all time discussions, I think two rangz is the bare minimum. You need to be a multiple time winner. People need to see that you can win under different sets of conditions and that your single championship wasn't just a perfect storm of events. No disrespect to Yolk OR his championship run from two years ago, it definitely counts for something and it definitely separates him from some of his peers, but since then he hasn't even made it past the second round. I need to see more before you start comparing him to Bean. In fact if OKC were to somehow win it again next year, SGA would almost certainly surpass Yolk as the undisputed best player in the league according to consensus. You just can't deny someone after they've done it multiple times. Few people will care about triple doubles and nerdy advanced stats.
Kobe has FIVE, and for most of his prime the western conference was fukking loaded with good to great teams. Yolk has nowhere near the resume and he's nowhere near as proven. Remember even after Jordan won the first time, not everyone was prepared to concede that he belonged in the convo with Magic and Bird. He needed to win it again the following year in order to really legitimize himself as someone worthy of being compared to them.
Results, not stats.
Greatness, not stats.
SouBeachTalents
09-15-2025, 09:37 AM
You to play to win. Not for efficiency, not for stats. Kobe's dominance has yielded infinitely better results than Yolk's up until this point of his career. I don't care about regular season MVP's and never did. I don't care about advanced stats, charts or graph tabulations. I care about winning. I care about rangz.
If you wanna be in the elite all time discussions, I think two rangz is the bare minimum. You need to be a multiple time winner. People need to see that you can win under different sets of conditions and that your single championship wasn't just a perfect storm of events. No disrespect to Yolk OR his championship run from two years ago, it definitely counts for something and it definitely separates him from some of his peers, but since then he hasn't even made it past the second round. I need to see more before you start comparing him to Bean. In fact if OKC were to somehow win it again next year, SGA would almost certainly surpass Yolk as the undisputed best player in the league according to consensus. You just can't deny someone after they've done it multiple times. Few people will care about triple doubles and nerdy advanced stats.
Kobe has FIVE, and for most of his prime the western conference was fukking loaded with good to great teams. Yolk has nowhere near the resume and he's nowhere near as proven. Remember even after Jordan won the first time, not everyone was prepared to concede that he belonged in the convo with Magic and Bird. He needed to win it again the following year in order to really legitimize himself as someone worthy of being compared to them.
Results, not stats.
Greatness, not stats.
You place way too much of an emphasis on team results when evaluating individual players. You can repeat "You play to win" until you're blue in the face, but the truth is rings are often very circumstantial, and come down to things that are often out of a players control like roster construction, strength of their opponent, injuries, and just random lucky (or unlucky) breaks.
The greatest irony of Kobe fans, who place a greater emphasis on rings than probably any other athlete, if you ask them when Kobe's peak was, the majority will say 2006-2008, when he didn't win anything and often couldn't get out of the 1st round :lol That should tell you more than anything that team results are not always indicative of a players individual performance.
HoopsNY
09-15-2025, 09:47 AM
You to play to win. Not for efficiency, not for stats. Kobe's dominance has yielded infinitely better results than Yolk's up until this point of his career. I don't care about regular season MVP's and never did. I don't care about advanced stats, charts or graph tabulations. I care about winning. I care about rangz.
If you wanna be in the elite all time discussions, I think two rangz is the bare minimum. You need to be a multiple time winner. People need to see that you can win under different sets of conditions and that your single championship wasn't just a perfect storm of events. No disrespect to Yolk OR his championship run from two years ago, it definitely counts for something and it definitely separates him from some of his peers, but since then he hasn't even made it past the second round. I need to see more before you start comparing him to Bean. In fact if OKC were to somehow win it again next year, SGA would almost certainly surpass Yolk as the undisputed best player in the league according to consensus. You just can't deny someone after they've done it multiple times. Few people will care about triple doubles and nerdy advanced stats.
Kobe has FIVE, and for most of his prime the western conference was fukking loaded with good to great teams. Yolk has nowhere near the resume and he's nowhere near as proven. Remember even after Jordan won the first time, not everyone was prepared to concede that he belonged in the convo with Magic and Bird. He needed to win it again the following year in order to really legitimize himself as someone worthy of being compared to them.
Results, not stats.
Greatness, not stats.
Let's not get carried away. While I understand where it is you're coming from, we don't want to fall into the territory of completely underrating Jokic's success.
For one, you're neglecting the fact that Jokic didn't have Murray for two of his peak years (2021 and 2022). Granted, Denver's record in those series against Phoenix and Golden State was 1-8. It's likely that Murray doesn't shift the outcome, but we simply don't know that for sure. And it comes as no surprise that once Murray got healthy, they won a title.
Regardless, we can't ignore the dominance factor of Jokic's play. And let's keep it real, he should have won 4 consecutive MVPs. Someone who achieves that or somewhere close to it can definitely be discussed in the top 10 when you consider the fact that he's already won a title.
All things considered, this is a worthy conversation. I don't really fault anyone for picking Jokic because a lot of it is just how we feel in the moment. I recall after Kobe won his 5th title a lot of people were putting him over MJ. It happens.
Baller234
09-15-2025, 10:06 AM
You place way too much of an emphasis on team results when evaluating individual players. You can repeat "You play to win" until you're blue in the face, but the truth is rings are often very circumstantial, and come down to things that are often out of a players control like roster construction, strength of their opponent, injuries, and just random lucky (or unlucky) breaks.
The greatest irony of Kobe fans, who place a greater emphasis on rings than probably any other athlete, if you ask them when Kobe's peak was, the majority will say 2006-2008, when he didn't win anything and often couldn't get out of the 1st round :lol That should tell you more than anything that team results are not always indicative of a players individual performance.
This is true. Championships can be very circumstantial. Teams can get lucky. It's why I'm not ready to crown Yolk because of his single championship.
The '19 Raptors come to mind. A lot of things went their way that post season. Kudos to them but they probably don't win a championship with that exact same roster most years. It was just their time.
But you don't get lucky FIVE times. :oldlol:
Baller234
09-15-2025, 10:25 AM
Let's not get carried away. While I understand where it is you're coming from, we don't want to fall into the territory of completely underrating Jokic's success.
For one, you're neglecting the fact that Jokic didn't have Murray for two of his peak years (2021 and 2022). Granted, Denver's record in those series against Phoenix and Golden State was 1-8. It's likely that Murray doesn't shift the outcome, but we simply don't know that for sure. And it comes as no surprise that once Murray got healthy, they won a title.
Regardless, we can't ignore the dominance factor of Jokic's play. And let's keep it real, he should have won 4 consecutive MVPs. Someone who achieves that or somewhere close to it can definitely be discussed in the top 10 when you consider the fact that he's already won a title.
All things considered, this is a worthy conversation. I don't really fault anyone for picking Jokic because a lot of it is just how we feel in the moment. I recall after Kobe won his 5th title a lot of people were putting him over MJ. It happens.
MVP's are also circumstantial. I agree that he's been the best player in basketball for several years now but we're not comparing Yolk to his peers, we're comparing him across time. As we speak there is a case for SGA being the best in the game. He also has an MVP. Whose to say Kobe wouldn't also be racking them up in this era? We don't know. I just couldn't conceive putting someone top ten all time with just one championship. To me that's an incredibly low bar when comparing the all time greats.
It's not like he's been stuck on dead end teams this entire time. Denver was good enough to beat Minny last season but they didn't. Denver was good enough to beat OKC this season but they didn't. He had some great games but he also had shitty games. He also had some really poor crunch time performances. That's two years during his prime where he had good teams and fell short for whatever reason.
Hakeem is a prime example. His 93-94 run was about as epic as it gets. Pure dominance. But if he gets injured the following season and never played another game, his legacy would be nowhere near the same. Him winning AGAIN is what solidified his greatness. It affirmed what we already suspected.
Yolk is great but I still need to see more. He needs to win AGAIN. At the very least he needs to CONTEND again.
tpols
09-15-2025, 12:09 PM
Made a mistake here, it should be 55% for Kobe, and not 56%. I also looked up some other elite guys and here's what I found.
PS Duncan '01-'10: 55% TS%
PS Garnett '00-'10: 53% TS%
PS Shaq '00-'06: 56% TS%
What's telling is how similar Kobe's performances were to his peers. In some cases better. I'm actually surprised Shaq's TS% was similar. LeBron's sat at 56% also. Duncan is also surprising to me. His is roughly the same as Kobe's. And these are big men who were regularly taking higher percentage shots.
I'm beginning to think that Kobe wasn't inefficient at all. I watched his whole career. The conversations I recall having was his overshooting, and not necessarily inefficiency. Iverson was always the inefficient one IIRC.
The issue was hed let his ego take over some times and take wild ass shots. And of course he never shied away from taking tough shots that need to be taken in order to protect his %. Despite that... Kobes efficiency was still good. If he played like a b!tch he'd probably do 60TS.
HoopsNY
09-15-2025, 01:34 PM
The issue was hed let his ego take over some times and take wild ass shots. And of course he never shied away from taking tough shots that need to be taken in order to protect his %. Despite that... Kobes efficiency was still good. If he played like a b!tch he'd probably do 60TS.
Yea I think we can all agree that there were times where overshooting was a problem. But somewhere along the line, the narrative became that Kobe was inefficient to the detriment of his team. I don't think this is true and would be curious to hear a counter argument based on what I have provided.
This is true. Championships can be very circumstantial. Teams can get lucky. It's why I'm not ready to crown Yolk because of his single championship.
The '19 Raptors come to mind. A lot of things went their way that post season. Kudos to them but they probably don't win a championship with that exact same roster most years. It was just their time.
But you don't get lucky FIVE times. :oldlol:
Isn't the title of this thread "Who's better at basketball" - it isn't: who's had the better career, who's higher on the GOAT list (these 2 are obvious) or who'd you prefer to start your franchise" Kobe and Jokic are on the opposite spectrum of typical measurable metrics - MVPs, rings, eras, etc. (probably why I haven't answered the original poll). But Jokic is nowhere done yet.
Baller234
09-16-2025, 01:59 PM
Isn't the title of this thread "Who's better at basketball" - it isn't: who's had the better career, who's higher on the GOAT list (these 2 are obvious) or who'd you prefer to start your franchise" Kobe and Jokic are on the opposite spectrum of typical measurable metrics - MVPs, rings, eras, etc. (probably why I haven't answered the original poll). But Jokic is nowhere done yet.
Lol how can you measure who's better at basketball without taking winning into account?
Basketball isn't performance art and it isn't figure skating. We don't have a panel of judges sitting courtside. It's a live competition and the goal is to beat your opponent.
Anthony Edwards for example. He's really good at basketball but he hasn't proven jack shit yet so it doesn't matter how talented or how good we think he is. Winning matters. Even Jordan went through it. Before 1991 everyone said he was a ball hog who couldn't win. He had to prove himself.
Lol how can you measure who's better at basketball without taking winning into account?
Basketball isn't performance art and it isn't figure skating. We don't have a panel of judges sitting courtside. It's a live competition and the goal is to beat your opponent.
Anthony Edwards for example. He's really good at basketball but he hasn't proven jack shit yet so it doesn't matter how talented or how good we think he is. Winning matters. Even Jordan went through it. Before 1991 everyone said he was a ball hog who couldn't win. He had to prove himself.
Jokic is only 30 - a late bloomer, not reliant on athleticism and with off the chart skills that will not deteriorate with age. How can you place such emphasis on winning when one of them is only 30 in an age where players are lasting so long with improved training, nutrition, medical and things like hyperbaric chambers? Don't get me wrong - I place HIGH emphasis on winning when it comes to GOAT talk but this is not the question at hand nor is Jokic's story finished.
Baller234
09-16-2025, 06:49 PM
Jokic is only 30 - a late bloomer, not reliant on athleticism and with off the chart skills that will not deteriorate with age. How can you place such emphasis on winning when one of them is only 30 in an age where players are lasting so long with improved training, nutrition, medical and things like hyperbaric chambers? Don't get me wrong - I place HIGH emphasis on winning when it comes to GOAT talk but this is not the question at hand nor is Jokic's story finished.
Lol, the whole point of the poll is to compare the two players.
On one side you have a 1x champion, on the other side you have a 5x champion. It's not like you're comparing Yolk to Embiid here. You're comparing him to a guy that is tried and proven.
You're 100% right about Yolk being young and still having time left, which is why I think his fans are retarded for even trying to have this talk. They're the ones putting him in goat debates. Sorry but that means he's gonna be held to goat standards and compared to other goats.
And honestly, let's be real, we already have a superior Yolk comp and his name is Larry Bird. Not only a guy who could do it all offensively, but a guy that made a difference on defense too. A guy that was unstoppable one on one. Going purely off the eye test Yolk isn't even as good as Bird.
Full Court
09-16-2025, 07:28 PM
Lol, the whole point of the poll is to compare the two players.
On one side you have a 1x champion, on the other side you have a 5x champion. It's not like you're comparing Yolk to Embiid here. You're comparing him to a guy that is tried and proven.
You're 100% right about Yolk being young and still having time left, which is why I think his fans are retarded for even trying to have this talk. They're the ones putting him in goat debates. Sorry but that means he's gonna be held to goat standards and compared to other goats.
And honestly, let's be real, we already have a superior Yolk comp and his name is Larry Bird. Not only a guy who could do it all offensively, but a guy that made a difference on defense too. A guy that was unstoppable one on one. Going purely off the eye test Yolk isn't even as good as Bird.
This is 100% true, and shouldn't even be a controversial take.
j3lademaster
09-17-2025, 01:56 PM
How do you even have an "eye test" of Bird if you didn't see him play? Comparing highlights? The only way would be if you downloaded and watched scores of old Celtics games.
Jokic is better than Bird at: stats relative to their own eras, more consistent in big playoff games... by a lot this isn't even comparable, and neither Bird or Kobe has a 5 year stretch where the majority of fans consider him bitw. Bird was eclipsed by Moses in the early 80's, was 1a/1b with Magic for a few years until MJ took over around 87 or 88. The problem with a lot of these old stars is that the ones with the team accolades stand the test of time while the ones without get looked over. Tmac vs Kobe was a real conversation in the early 2000's, KG was in that mix too, and most felt TD(outside of LA) and Shaq were better. Wade in 09 was a real conversation with Kobe. They were much closer conversations than Jokic vs Embiid or Jokic vs Shai.
Baller234
09-17-2025, 06:16 PM
How do you even have an "eye test" of Bird if you didn't see him play? Comparing highlights? The only way would be if you downloaded and watched scores of old Celtics games.
Jokic is better than Bird at: stats relative to their own eras, more consistent in big playoff games... by a lot this isn't even comparable, and neither Bird or Kobe has a 5 year stretch where the majority of fans consider him bitw. Bird was eclipsed by Moses in the early 80's, was 1a/1b with Magic for a few years until MJ took over around 87 or 88. The problem with a lot of these old stars is that the ones with the team accolades stand the test of time while the ones without get looked over. Tmac vs Kobe was a real conversation in the early 2000's, KG was in that mix too, and most felt TD(outside of LA) and Shaq were better. Wade in 09 was a real conversation with Kobe. They were much closer conversations than Jokic vs Embiid or Jokic vs Shai.
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone after reading this post. :oldlol:
- The Eye Test
If you can't tell that Bird is the better player simply by watching him, then maybe basketball isn't for you. In terms of breaking down their man one on one, it isn't even a contest.
- Yolk having more consistent big playoff games
This is insane. Bird has been to the ECF eight times and the finals five times. :oldlol:
- Neither Bird or Kobe had a 5 year stretch where they were considered the best
Because they played against other all time greats. Prime Magic, Prime Moses, Prime Duncan, Prime Shaq and Prime LeBron are leagues better than any of Yolk's current peers. :oldlol: And even though I don't put much stock into media awards, Bird won three consecutive MVP's so I'm pretty sure most people thought he was the best.
- T-Mac Vs. Kobe and the importance of accolades
They were equals in terms of TALENT but there's more to the game than just talent. It's not like Kobe just randomly stumbled his way to multiple championships. Obviously he had character traits that T-Mac didn't. The same applies to Duncan and Garnett. KG was more athletically gifted and had way more finesse, but Duncan's gritty blue collar style of basketball proved to be more effective. What he lacked in raw talent he made up for with fundamentals and a stone cold killer's mentality. I love KG but we're talking about a guy who CRIED on camera because his team wasn't winning. Not after a heartbreaking playoff exit but during a pre-season interview. :oldlol:
SouBeachTalents
09-17-2025, 06:48 PM
- The Eye Test
If you can't tell that Bird is the better player simply by watching him, then maybe basketball isn't for you. In terms of breaking down their man one on one, it isn't even a contest.
To act like Jokic isn't even in the convo with Bird is just absurd and not a take based in reality. I would disagree with claiming Bird was better than Jokic, I think peak for peak Jokic is the superior/more impactful player, but I wouldn't claim if someone thought Bird was better that basketball isn't for them. That's a completely hyperbolic take.
- Yolk having more consistent big playoff games
This is insane. Bird has been to the ECF eight times and the finals five times. :oldlol:
This has nothing to do with who performed better individually. He's absolutely right, Bird has a stunning amount of very pedestrian playoff performances for a top 10 player and a guy lauded for his clutch play. Even accounting for eras Bird's bad playoff series are FAR worse than Jokic's, who's been a remarkably consistently great playoff performer.
- T-Mac Vs. Kobe and the importance of accolades
They were equals in terms of TALENT but there's more to the game than just talent. It's not like Kobe just randomly stumbled his way to multiple championships. Obviously he had character traits that T-Mac didn't. The same applies to Duncan and Garnett. KG was more athletically gifted and had way more finesse, but Duncan's gritty blue collar style of basketball proved to be more effective. What he lacked in raw talent he made up for with fundamentals and a stone cold killer's mentality. I love KG but we're talking about a guy who CRIED on camera because his team wasn't winning. Not after a heartbreaking playoff exit but during a pre-season interview. :oldlol:
I won't dispute Kobe was more competitive/hungrier than McGrady, but I'm not sure you could have a bigger disparity in supporting cast than these guys had when they both hit their primes. Kobe had peak Shaq & Phil while McGrady had genuinely a WOAT tier supporting cast in Orlando. Similar story with Duncan & KG, Duncan had Robinson & Pop to start out, then Parker & Manu down the road while KG consistently had a far weaker supporting cast in Minny. Even accounting for the intangible advantages Kobe/Duncan may have had, the talent disparity they enjoyed in comparison to McGrady/KG during their peak years is simply too significant to ignore or not factor in.
HoopsNY
09-22-2025, 08:51 AM
How do you even have an "eye test" of Bird if you didn't see him play? Comparing highlights? The only way would be if you downloaded and watched scores of old Celtics games.
Jokic is better than Bird at: stats relative to their own eras, more consistent in big playoff games... by a lot this isn't even comparable, and neither Bird or Kobe has a 5 year stretch where the majority of fans consider him bitw. Bird was eclipsed by Moses in the early 80's, was 1a/1b with Magic for a few years until MJ took over around 87 or 88. The problem with a lot of these old stars is that the ones with the team accolades stand the test of time while the ones without get looked over. Tmac vs Kobe was a real conversation in the early 2000's, KG was in that mix too, and most felt TD(outside of LA) and Shaq were better. Wade in 09 was a real conversation with Kobe. They were much closer conversations than Jokic vs Embiid or Jokic vs Shai.
Bird played pre-expansion via '89 for the majority of his career and all of his peak/prime where the Eastern Conference was also more stacked. I think this matters when evaluating players' careers or at least considering the opposition. In terms of winning, how many teams has Denver beaten that were the caliber of a Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly, or Lakers? In the finals, Jokic met the Heat. Bird played teams like the Lakers, and won.
I also think it's arbitrary to look at 5 years to say who was considered the best for their stretch. First, Bird won MVP 3 years in a row, and could have probably won the first of four in '83 had Moses not been traded to form a superteam. '87 is debatable. And finally, ask anyone who the best player of the 80s was. Right up to '87-88, it was Larry. He's widely regarded as the best player of the decade.
I don't think TMac was in the conversation with Kobe in the early 2000s. He became part of that conversation in 2003, but for the entirety of 2000-04? It was really Kobe. A lot of people say this but I don't think it's an accurate assessment.
AlternativeAcc.
09-22-2025, 03:16 PM
Obviously the answer is Jokic and it's not close.
I think this thread does highlight the parody of today's game - Jokic is essentially the Shaq of this era and should be the MVP every year. Him *only* having 1 title speaks to the nature of today's game more than anything else. The last team to repeat were the KD Warriors almost a decade ago.
Bringing up titles for a guy who was carried by his eras Jokic for the majority of them is obviously disingenuous.
This discussion should be about Shaq and Jokic. The parody of today's league really creates some goofy conversations.
John8204
09-22-2025, 07:56 PM
Obviously the answer is Jokic and it's not close.
I think this thread does highlight the parody of today's game - Jokic is essentially the Shaq of this era and should be the MVP every year. Him *only* having 1 title speaks to the nature of today's game more than anything else. The last team to repeat were the KD Warriors almost a decade ago.
Bringing up titles for a guy who was carried by his eras Jokic for the majority of them is obviously disingenuous.
This discussion should be about Shaq and Jokic. The parody of today's league really creates some goofy conversations.
You mean like how he only won a single title in an era where you had zero dynasties.
Jokic has made the finals once, the conference finals twice. But but but the numbers say. Numbers are generational you are compared to your contemporaries. Kobe made it to the conference finals 8 times, Larry Bird made it to the conference finals level 8 times, Michael Jordan did it 8 times, Magic did it 10 times.
Having incredible numbers in the first two rounds and getting knocked out of the playoffs isn't some trump card over having lesser numbers in the finals.
Jokc is better at Kobe in literally every aspect of the game, and it's not even remotely close either lol
BlackMamba8
10-04-2025, 12:17 PM
Jokc is better at Kobe in literally every aspect of the game, and it's not even remotely close either lol
calm down peasant ILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE
Soundwave
10-05-2025, 03:57 PM
Jokc is better at Kobe in literally every aspect of the game, and it's not even remotely close either lol
He's not a better scorer or defender.
A prime Kobe would average 30+ with ease in the league currently.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.