Printable View
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]What do you mean?
This would be a point if I thought Magic or Kareem or Bird was better than Kobe based merely on how many titles they won or team success.
Which I don't...and is the exact thing I'm arguing against.[/QUOTE]
So context only matters for championships but not statistics? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=STATUTORY]So context only matters for championships but not statistics? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I think it matters for everything actually.
Not sure where you'd get any other idea.
I'm just not stupid enough to pretend like the level of play Dirk/Lebron/Wade lost with in 09 was somehow wosre than what Kobe won with. We can argue a bit around the edges...but we all know what the big difference was that year...
It was team strength.
Which is why I think Backpicks has it right in terms of the starting place. I think an unbiased/data driven analysis of the best careers should be where we start...and then start debating based on all the other stuff guys have proven.
For example, I think he over-rates KG for the reasons you seem to be getting at.
But, it seems like it always goes in the direction of "empty stats"..."nothing matters without a title"...and that is far more flawed than an objective analysis in my view.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
For starters, Lebron is much later in his career with considerably more mileage...
but even ignoring that. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]The competition is likely to be way better this year than in 09.[/COLOR][/B]
[/quote]
Except it isn't just this year - Lebron was the underdog or lost for 3 of 4 years alongside Wade/Bosh... Ditto his years alongside Kyrie/Love - overall, he had superteams from 11-17' but was the underdog or lost every year except 1 - that's 6 of 7 years as the loser or underdog
Kobe would do FAR better than that and already did with just Bosh.
So regardless of how much you don't like kobe's stats, the historical record doesn't back up the idea that Lebron was better for winning than Kobe - he's almost always a loser or underdog regardless of cast, and that continues this year (people saying he's an underdog to the clippers despite having the best 2nd option in the league and various all-defenders, scorers, and veteran creators as his supporting cast)
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Look at the kind of teams the best players had that year. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]There is absolutely no team that will even touch what the Clippers will be if healthy.[/COLOR][/B]
[/QUOTE]
There's no team that touches the Lakers' cast either - Vegas put the lakers as favorites the instant they got AD [I]for a reason[/I] - he's much better than PG13
And that's the problem with Lebron fans - they always complain about the comp without realizing that Lebron has a great cast too that should win if Lebron is the best..
i.e. they complain about the Spurs being too good, when Lebron's Heat had the most talent in the league.. This continued in Cleveland, when the 2015 Cavs were the pre-season and pre-playoffs favorite to win the ring - yes, we know they got hurt that year - but their favorite status before the injuries shows that they could've been favorites again in 2016.. They simply became underdogs in 2016 because they had a 2nd underwhelming 50-something win season, while Curry was winning 70
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Of course it is all ultimately subjective, but I think we have enough information to say [B][COLOR="Blue"]nothing was "automatic" about Kobe beating the likes of Dirk/Wade/Lebron/KG/Duncan[/COLOR][/B] in that era if they had equal help and coaching.
[/QUOTE]
Kobe beat Duncan in 2008 with 30 ppg on 50%, and that was after Lebron had just gotten swept with 22 on 36% in 2007.
And KG had better help than Kobe in 2010, yet Kobe beat him by attracting a double-team and hitting Artest.
So it seems like you're the one biased here against Kobe, and not looking at the facts.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
You have to talk about it all...not just titles won...[B]but actually the [COLOR="DarkRed"]impact[/COLOR] of said players.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm doing, while you aren't..
You're ignoring the facts and blindly saying Lebron has more impact, even though the historical record shows that Kobe's teams were automatic favorites with decent help, while Lebron is perennial underdogs with even [I]more[/I] help.
Kobe's superior scoring/attacking versatility fit with any teammates or system, which enabled higher ceilings (perennial favorites), while Lebron's limited skills/scoring versatility doesn't fit or get the best out of teams.. so kobe's superior skillset makes him the better basketball player..
So I stand by my rankings.. you did not convince me, and infact made me examine the historical record closer, which only reinforced my arguments for kobe.. you're simply ignoring the facts and going along with the standard group-think about lebron, while I look at what actually happened (perennial favorites versus perennial underdogs despite similar or less help, aka greater impact for kobe)
I really don't agree with any of what you say on the topic.
Lebron has had really good teams, to varying degrees, from 11 through this year. Completely agree. The problem for you is that you make it sound like he hasn't done anything in that time. He's won 3 titles and made the finals 8 times or whatever it is now. In some of those finals...he was absolutely drawing dead to win it.
Yes, 11 he was terrible...but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.
Again, context matters. Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him. You know this...I know this...we all know this...be consistent.
Why pick 2010 to compare to KG and 2008 when Kobe had a terrible finals and lost to KG's team?
KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good. Duncan beat Kobe/Shaq. Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.
Again, nothing supports you here.
No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.
Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.
And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I really don't agree with any of what you say on the topic.
Lebron has had really good teams, to varying degrees, from 11 through this year. Completely agree. The problem for you is that you make it sound like he hasn't done anything in that time. He's won 3 titles and made the finals 8 times or whatever it is now. In some of those finals...he was absolutely drawing dead to win it.
Yes, 11 he was terrible...but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.
Again, context matters. Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him. You know this...I know this...we all know this...be consistent.
Why pick 2010 to compare to KG and 2008 when Kobe had a terrible finals and lost to KG's team?
KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good. Duncan beat Kobe/Shaq. Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.
Again, nothing supports you here.
No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.
Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.
And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.[/QUOTE]
:applause:
Think about the first things you'd bring up about Kobe if you treated him like Lebron.
All those stats you post for MJ and Lebron...they favor Lebron in a comparison over Kobe.
Lebron has him dead on longevity.
Then think about what you'd say about Kobe's early years when he wasn't even getting burn because he wasn't that good, the airballs in Utah, his horrid 00 finals, getting murked by Duncan in 03 with Shaq, one of the worst finals from a star ever in 04, missing the playoffs in 05, blowing a 3-1 series lead in 06, getting destroyed in the 08 finals, getting swept as the title favorite in the 2nd round in 11...etc.
The problem isn't thinking Kobe was better than most do...it is that you aren't remotely consistent in your treatment of certain players.
highlighting the "lesser" side of someone's career is not convincing if you do it for one player only. They all have it.
I can give you a bigger list for Lebron if you wish for example.
[QUOTE=LAL]highlighting the "lesser" side of someone's career is not convincing if you do it for one player only. They all have it.
I can give you a bigger list for Lebron if you wish for example.[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree, but you are missing the point.
The point is that is what he'd be saying about Kobe if he treated him like Lebron.
For example, he's arguing that it would be humiliating for Lebron to lose with Davis this year. In year 17 of his career...on a team in their first year together going up against at least one team as good or better.
So, my point is...do the same for Kobe. What happened in those 5 years he failed to win with Shaq? Right? We all agree Shaq was better than Davis...so where is the consistency? Lakers were favorites in 08...so I'm assuming he is going to hammer Kobe for playing so poorly in that series and losing...right?
That is my point...
Just look at the previous post. He brings up 08 vs Duncan and 10 vs KG. Like only someone ignorant or biased...or someone that thinks we are all stupid...is going to do that and think it proves something.
And, in terms of Kobe vs Lebron...I really don't think you can...especially because Lebron was so much better early on in his career compared to Kobe....and has been much better later in his career as well.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Yes, 11 he was terrible...[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.[/COLOR][/B]
[/quote]
Yes, they both had horrible series - lebron in 07', 11', and also 08' ECSF, while Kobe had his share of bad series too
So that's not a convincing argument.. you're 0-1 so far in convincing me.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
[B]In some of those finals...lebron was absolutely drawing dead to win it.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Not in 2011, where he was the favorite
And not in 2014, where it was [url=https://www.nj.com/knicks/2014/06/nba_finals_2014_experts_predict_whether_the_heat_or_spurs_will_come_out_on_top_in_the_finals_rematch.html]even odds[/url], so many expected him to win.
Ultimately, Lebron has 4 series where he lost when expected to win - 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014.. I also think he could've won in 2017, although most disagree.
So your argument didn't convince me.. 0-2
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Again, context matters. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles[/COLOR][/B]. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him.
[/quote]
Kobe was a teenager, similar to 04' and 05' Lebron, yet you're comparing those years to Lebron's purely prime years with Wade and Kyrie?
Sounds like you're ignoring facts again and blindly committed to Lebron... 0-3
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good.
[/QUOTE]
KG was declining but so was Kobe, and his Big 4 [U]cast[/U] was still better to Kobe's cast... that's all that matters - the cast.. KG's cast was easily better, yet Kobe beat him.
So another failed argument for you.. 0-4
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.
[/QUOTE]
Earlier you cited Kobe's teenage years as evidence, and now you're citing Kobe's downside years as evidence.. So your argument fails again... 0-5
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.
Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. [B][COLOR="blue"]RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.[/COLOR][/B]
And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.
[/QUOTE]
That's because the mainstream and casual fan is only looking at the stats - you only have worthless statistical arguments, while I have a skill-based, factual argument for why Kobe was better:
Lebron had perennial underdogs, while Kobe had perennial favorites despite less help because his superior skillset fit with any system or teammate, so he got more out of teams/had better teams.. :confusedshrug: :applause: … You cannot get me off this clear-cut, [I]skill-based[/I], factual argument with some bullshit stats.. :oldlol:
Kobe was simply better and most players that played against both guys choose Kobe.. I'm simply explaining [I]why[/I] they choose Kobe, even if they themselves can't articulate it (all they know is that kobe's teams were bomb favorites and they had full confidence in victory, while Lebron's teams are less confident underdogs and constantly in need of more help)..
0-6
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Again, nothing supports you here.
[/quote]
Except that Kobe needed a Bosh-level player at 2nd option to have perennial favorites, while Lebron had perennial underdogs with Bosh at [U]3rd[/U] option and a kobe-like perimeter stud at 2nd option..
Lebron simply needed [U]way[/U] more help, due to his teammate marginalization resulting from inferior skillset..
Kobe would've been 4/4 with Lebron's Heat teams because he owned the Spurs - it's partly psychological, similar to Lebron's ownage of the Raptors..
Ultimately, there's so many ways that Kobe is superior including a superior skillset (on-ball/off-ball), superior mindset (assassin, teammate galvanizing), superior jumpshooter, superior winner and competitor, attracts double-teams/causes adjustments, among other things
0-7
.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Why are Oscar and Wilt ahead of Lebron?[/QUOTE]
Because they're not threats to Jordan.
[QUOTE]So, my point is...do the same for Kobe. What happened in those 5 years he failed to win with Shaq? Right? We all agree Shaq was better than Davis...so where is the consistency? Lakers were favorites in 08...so I'm assuming he is going to hammer Kobe for playing so poorly in that series and losing...right?[/QUOTE]
It's not honest to say first 5 years with shaq when talking about 13 minutes per game Kobe, actual context, the minute kobe was a starter it was game over, 5 for 7 in a decade and as dominant as anyone.
[QUOTE]Just look at the previous post. He brings up 08 vs Duncan and 10 vs KG. Like only someone ignorant or biased...or someone that thinks we are all stupid...is going to do that and think it proves something.
[/QUOTE]
But then you say this
[QUOTE]And, in terms of Kobe vs Lebron...I really don't think you can...especially because Lebron was so much better early on in his career compared to Kobe....[B]and has been much better later in his career as well.[/B][/QUOTE]
Have you seen 17th year Kobe play? Lebron missed the playoffs and Kobe looked so impressive who knows what he was going to pull off in the playoffs.
Lebron having his own team from the get go and not ending up in a veteran star team was luck, and even if he was better at a younger age, it doesn't mean much, were comparing all time rankings here.
The idea that Kareem was
Sigh...
1. Yes, they both have...that is my point. You missed the point. My point was that you don't talk about them with Kobe. You aren't consistent. You post stats when it comes to MJ vs Lebron as part of your argument..then ignore those same stats that favor Lebron when it comes to comparing him to Kobe. Again, this is called not being an honest actor.
2. Completely agree about 2011. Don't agree about 2014, but I can concede that if you like. Again you miss the point....why aren't you doing this for Kobe? He was favored in 99 and lost. Favored in 03 and lost. Favored in 04 and lost. Favored in 08 after the Pau trade and lost. Favored in 11 to make the finals and lost.
3. Early years matter. You can't ignore them. Lebron was better early on his career vs Kobe...just like he's clearly better late in his career. Sorry if you don't like it, but if we are ranking careers and not peaks...every year counts. I agree some count more than others, but you can't ignore certain years just to fit your conclusions.
4. No, this is false. Nothing supports the 10 Celtics being the better team leading up to that. To use your own criteria, the Lakers were the pre-season favorites and then the Celtics struggled all year as KG came back from injury. Regardless, you ignored 08...when Kobe was actually the favorite and played KG's team...and lost. Again, why ignore that if you want to be taken seriously?
5. Every year counts...and if you are going to argue 11 doesn't matter for Kobe because of his decline. The longevity of his career sucks in comparison. So you basically only have 00 through 10 as relevant. Again, why would Kobe get a pass for 11, but you say Lebron losing this year be humiliating? Kobe was in year 15 at the time and didn't have near the mileage Lebron currently does. Again, you make my point for me...you are extremely biased.
6. I disagree overall, but can agree that Kobe is better than some of his stats suggest. However, I haven't seen any statistical analysis from you that approaches the Backpicks stuff...which really details some myths surrounding Kobe's defense / shot jacking. So, no...you don't have much here...especially when I've seen your "stats" you post...and they all favor Lebron over Kobe. You just don't use them here consistently because you don't like the conclusion as I said above.
7. Yes, I agree...Kobe has some superior skills in specific areas that are useful. This is a non-point as I, nor anyone, would ever argue that Lebron is better at every facet of the game.
[QUOTE=LAL]It's not honest to say first 5 years with shaq when talking about 13 minutes per game Kobe, actual context, the minute kobe was a starter it was game over, 5 for 7 in a decade and as dominant as anyone.
But then you say this
Have you seen 17th year Kobe play? Lebron missed the playoffs and Kobe looked so impressive who knows what he was going to pull off in the playoffs.
Lebron having his own team from the get go and not ending up in a veteran star team was luck, and even if he was better at a younger age, it doesn't mean much, were comparing all time rankings here.[/QUOTE]
Again, every year of a career matters. I've addressed this, but I'll address it again here. Some clearly matter more than others, but you can't just shrug off the fact that Lebron was way better than Kobe early on. You guys make it sound like we should just ignore Kobe's first 3 years...that isn't how it works...sorry. And, again, I'm not even making that argument really...I'm using it to show the inconsistency. Which is apparent...Lebron has to win in year 17 or it is humiliating...but Kobe losing with Shaq is fine.
Yes, I watched Kobe's entire career closely...and he's not as good as Lebron has been on the court late in his career...it isn't particularly close.
I don't think Kobe was as "dominant as anyone"...certainly not Shaq or Duncan from that era in my opinion. But even if I agreed with that...it wouldn't change my point...which was that Kobe with similar help vs the all-time guys I listed is not "automatic title" as has been claimed
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The idea that Kareem was “birdfed” is enough to make me assume 3ball missed a lot more of the old days than he lets on. Even old Kareem was one of the best one on one scorers of all time.
Guys like Hakeem and Ewing could barely guard him one on one but he needs to be “birdfed”.....[/QUOTE]
I understand that Kareem had the 2nd best go-to move ever, but the skyhook was a possession-finishing shot, so he still needed to be fed to take that shot
given his bad teams without a goat PG, and his great teams WITH one, this at least APPEARS to be similar to AD, who obviously needs a great PG to have a great team too
otoh, guys like Duncan didn't need a goat PG or bird-feeding - he would get the ball at the start of the possession, face-up his man, and control the whole possession.. Duncan directed offense and dictated pace better, aka controlled the game without needing a goat PG
I think that's a big difference and explains why Kareem is more like AD and needs a goat PG to have a great team, while Duncan had great teams with a couple short euros riding his coattails
At a minimum, it would seem like the bird-feeders (Magic, Lebron) > then the bird-fed (kareem, russell).. Magic and Lebron both had good teams and 1 seeds without a goat big, but the same can't be said the other way around.
The basketball having to be passed to you in order for you score does not mean you have to be birdfed. It means you
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, every year of a career matters. I've addressed this, but I'll address it again here. Some clearly matter more than others, but you can't just shrug off the fact that Lebron was way better than Kobe early on. You guys make it sound like we should just ignore Kobe's first 3 years...that isn't how it works...sorry. And, again, I'm not even making that argument really...I'm using it to show the inconsistency. Which is apparent...Lebron has to win in year 17 or it is humiliating...but Kobe losing with Shaq is fine.
Yes, I watched Kobe's entire career closely...and he's not as good as Lebron has been on the court late in his career...it isn't particularly close.
I don't think Kobe was as "dominant as anyone"...certainly not Shaq or Duncan from that era in my opinion. But even if I agreed with that...it [B]wouldn't change my point...which was that Kobe with similar help vs the all-time guys I listed is not "automatic title" as has been claimed[/B][/QUOTE]
Your first point was that you disagreed with putting Kobe in that first tier with Lebron/duncan etc.. I'm saying there's not much to disagree about putting Kobe atleast on that (higher even) same tier.
[QUOTE=LAL]Your first point was that you disagreed with putting Kobe in that first tier with Lebron/duncan etc.. I'm saying there's not much to disagree about putting Kobe atleast on that (higher even) same tier.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I disagree with that.
I think Kobe's individual impact and overall career was not good enough to warrant putting him with Lebron/Duncan in the all-time rankings.
Without having to write even more...this is about as close to my take on Kobe that you'll find...although I probably rate him slightly higher than he does;
[url]https://backpicks.com/2018/03/01/backpicks-goat-14-kobe-bryant/[/url]
The "bird-fed" Kareem shit is that same crap people used to tell me on here about why Dirk would never win a title.
"He needs someone to throw him the ball"
:D
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The idea that Kareem was
playmaking again is underrated by most people here. Bigs dont carry an offense like guards/wings not because they need to be "birdfed" but because they dont pass as much as most guards/wings besides a few exceptions like late 60s wilt.
Man you're clueless. What the hell does bird fed even mean? How many PF and Centers can you name that can create their own shot or didn't need someone to give them the ball in the low post? It's called basketball dummy.
Kareem was dominant period. Magic and Oscar wasn't protecting the paint. Kareem also was a clutch player and very reliable in the half court, because he had the sky hook. Kareem is at the very least top 3. I have him at 1. His resume from HS to the Pros speak for itself.
I swear man this is another dumb thread from the OP.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Sigh...
1. Yes, they both have...that is my point. You missed the point. My point was that you don't talk about them with Kobe. You aren't consistent. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]You post stats when it comes to MJ vs Lebron as part of your argument..then ignore those same stats that favor Lebron when it comes to comparing him to Kobe.[/COLOR][/B] Again, this is called not being an honest actor.
[/quote]
With MJ, I use all the arguments for him over Lebron (including stats), because I can..
With Kobe, I can't use stats, but I can use other things, like his skills and the resulting superior teams that he had.. It's not that complicated.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
3. Early years matter. You can't ignore them. Lebron was better early on his career vs Kobe...just like he's clearly better late in his career. Sorry if you don't like it, but if we are ranking careers and not peaks...every year counts. I agree some count more than others, but you can't ignore certain years just to fit your conclusions.
[/quote]
Okay, Lebron has better longevity.. I concede that point to you..
so you're 1 for like 10 or something..
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
4. No, this is false. Nothing supports the 10 Celtics being the better team leading up to that. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]To use your own criteria, the Lakers were the pre-season favorites[/COLOR][/B] and then the Celtics struggled all year as KG came back from injury. Regardless, you ignored 08...when Kobe was actually the favorite and played KG's team...and lost. Again, why ignore that if you want to be taken seriously?
[/quote]
you're making my point
Celtics were better on paper in both 2008 and 2010 - better talent - but Kobe's less talented team was still favored both years, while Lebron's more talented teams were underdogs in 16' (despite initially having the on-paper advantage and favorite status in 2015 before the injuries).
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
5. Every year counts...and if you are going to argue 11 doesn't matter for Kobe because of his decline. The longevity of his career sucks in comparison. So you basically only have 00 through 10 as relevant. Again, why would Kobe get a pass for 11, but you say Lebron losing this year be humiliating? Kobe was in year 15 at the time and didn't have near the mileage Lebron currently does. Again, you make my point for me...you are extremely biased.
[/quote]
Again, Lebron has Kobe in longevity... the first point that I concede to you... you're 1 for a million..
Part of that is because Lebron rests during the year and doesn't go all out, while Kobe does.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
6. I disagree overall, but can agree that Kobe is better than some of his stats suggest. However, I haven't seen any statistical analysis from you that approaches the Backpicks stuff...which really details some myths surrounding Kobe's defense / shot jacking. So, no...you don't have much here...especially when I've seen your "stats" you post...and they all favor Lebron over Kobe. You just don't use them here consistently because you don't like the conclusion as I said above.
[/quote]
Again, all you have is statistical arguments - you can't argue skill... I'll take Kobe's skill and winning over Lebron's stat-padding and inferior skillset..
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
7. Yes, I agree...Kobe has some superior skills in specific areas that are useful. This is a non-point as I, nor anyone, would ever argue that Lebron is better at every facet of the game.
[/QUOTE]
Lebron isn't better at anything, except maybe defensive rebounding
If Kobe decided to forget about winning and hold the ball 11 minutes a game to maximize stats, he'd get the same stats as Lebron.
i.e. if a coach's gameplan was to get maximum stats for one player without worrying about winning - that player would have great stats - that's what Lebron-ball is.. It's Lebron padding stats at the expense of team-ceiling - story of his career.. his limited skillset makes him an inferior winner to kobe, and therefore an inferior basketball player.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
2. Completely agree about 2011. Don't agree about 2014, but I can concede that if you like. Again you miss the point....why aren't you doing this for Kobe? [B]He was favored in 99 and lost. Favored in 03 and lost. Favored in 04 and lost. Favored in 08 after the Pau trade and lost. Favored in 11 to make the finals and lost.[/B]
[/quote]
They both were favored and lost - I only brought up Lebron's because you were lamenting about how he was "drawing dead" to win various Finals
But you're actually making my point by saying Lebron was drawing dead, while Kobe never was... Remember that when the 2015 super-team was first assembled, they were favored over the Warriors that year before the injuries - so that means Kobe would've had the best supporting talent in the league with that team and therefore favored in 2016, instead of "drawing dead" like Lebron's underachieving team.. So heading into 2017, Kobe's team would've been perceived as juggernaut favorites, instead of lucky underdogs that had no chance vs KD like Lebron's team..
It would be totally different with Kobe, because he's always gotten much more out of teams, while Lebron is a perennial underdog despite super-teams - that's Lebron's legacy (perennial underdogs despite super-teams, due to an inferior cp3/nash-level skillset), and that's why I knock him down the rankings..
Lebron might be 6'8" with the cp3 skillset, which sounds good and makes him way better than cp3, but it's still a suboptimal skillset that results in struggling teams on the championship level, regardless of cast or opponent.
.
Are we talking about the same Kobe Bryant with...
1x 40-pt Finals game in his entire career
1x MVP in 20 years
Blew a 3-1 lead vs team missing their best player
0x seasons shooting above .469% fg
0x playoff triple doubles
Missed the playoffs in prime (2005)
That Kobe?
Pip was bird feeding Mikey
[QUOTE=3ball]Lebron isn't better at anything, except maybe defensive rebounding[/QUOTE]
:roll:
What a clown
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The basketball having to be passed to you in order for you score does not mean you have to be birdfed. It means you
[QUOTE=SpaceJam2]Are we talking about the same Kobe Bryant with...
1x 40-pt Finals game in his entire career
1x MVP in 20 years
Blew a 3-1 lead vs team missing their best player
0x seasons shooting above .469% fg
0x playoff triple doubles
Missed the playoffs in prime (2005)
That Kobe?[/QUOTE]
We're talking about the guy that was always favored because his skillset was the top tier skillset that wins the most (2-way assassin, versatile scorer)
The stats are irrelevant when you consider how good Kobe made his teammates and teams
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The basketball having to be passed to you in order for you score does not mean you have to be birdfed. It means you
[QUOTE=3ball]Kareem absolutely needed to be fed
And tbh, so do basically all bigs, which is why they ALL needed a great perimeter player to have a great team:
Shaq needed Penny, Kobe, and Wade
Kareem needed Oscar and Magic
Russell needed 8 other HOF's including Cousy
the only one that didn't need absolute juggernaut perimeter players was Duncan.. Even Wilt needed a loaded Philly team in 1967 with Chet Walker and others, and then he had Jerry West with the Lakers.. But I give Wilt a pass because he was playing the Celtics every year and they needed 9 HOF to beat him.
But again, all bigs need great perimeter players to win, which is why I've been ranking the goat perimeter players over the goat bigs for a while now.. And now I realize that Kareem's losing in the 70's is directly related to him not having a goat PG.. He was a great scorer himself, but he needed someone to give him the ball, like all bigs.[/QUOTE]
he is making a difference between giving (receiver creates) and fed (created for) ya big dummie
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]he is making a difference between giving (receiver creates) and fed (created for) ya big dummie[/QUOTE]
Why did he need goat PG's to even have a GOOD team, let alone a great team?
how can he be better than Magic, MJ, Bird and others when he needed so much more help, to even have a GOOD team, let alone great team?
Magic had 1 seeds without Kareem... MJ had championship teams with zero bigs worth anything.. Rookie Bird turned a lottery team into 60-win juggernaut.. Kobe won with Bosh as his sidekick (i mean pau)
how can he be better than these guys if he needed far more help and otherwise lost his ass in what many call a weak era (70's)?..
He was essentially the biggest stat-padder of all-time in the 70's - his sky-hook game was suboptimal and couldn't win shit - just like AD - until he landed alongside a goat PG - just like AD
But who cares about the facts right?.. Let's go with the groupthink that infact makes no sense.. :applause:.. :facepalm:
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I really don't agree with any of what you say on the topic.
Lebron has had really good teams, to varying degrees, from 11 through this year. Completely agree. The problem for you is that you make it sound like he hasn't done anything in that time. He's won 3 titles and made the finals 8 times or whatever it is now. In some of those finals...he was absolutely drawing dead to win it.
Yes, 11 he was terrible...but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.
[B]Again, context matters. Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him. You know this...I know this...we all know this...be consistent.[/B]
Why pick 2010 to compare to KG and 2008 when Kobe had a terrible finals and lost to KG's team?
KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good. Duncan beat Kobe/Shaq. Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.
Again, nothing supports you here.
No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.
Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.
And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.[/QUOTE]
Expecting rookie kobe to win it all. LOL. Bron stans gonna bron.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents]:roll:
What a clown[/QUOTE]
:lol
He's obviously a closet Kobe fan and it pains him deeply to see Kobe 14th all time per most updated lists :lol
Kareem was a play maker in the low post. He was an excellent passer and commanded a double team. You do realize that you can be a play maker from the low or high post right. Basketball isn't rocket science and the OP is making up stuff to push an agenda. SMH. Basketball consists of passing, dribbling, shoot, rebounding, and defense. Just because Kareem wasn't out on the perimeter dribbling doesn't mean he was bird fed.
This is just a taste of what kareem used to do to "bird feed" his teammates. I also suggest you watch some old lakers came. Kareem won finals MVP at age 38.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyMo7CpO1Oo[/url]
[QUOTE=Replay32]Kareem was a play maker in the low post. He was an excellent passer and commanded a double team. You do realize that you can be a play maker from the low or high post right. Basketball isn't rocket science and the OP is making up stuff to push an agenda. SMH. Basketball consists of passing, dribbling, shoot, rebounding, and defense. Just because Kareem wasn't out on the perimeter dribbling doesn't mean he was bird fed.
This is just a taste of what kareem used to do to "bird feed" his teammates. I also suggest you watch some old lakers came. Kareem won finals MVP at age 38.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyMo7CpO1Oo[/url][/QUOTE]
He had horrible teams without a goat PG
Period.
He was essentially the biggest stat-padder of all-time in the 70's - his sky-hook game was suboptimal and couldn't win shit - just like AD - until he landed alongside a goat PG - just like AD
Sorry, but the bird-fed aren't greater than the bird-feeders.. So Kareem < MJ/Kobe/Bird/Magic
And for the record...
Kobe is a NEGATIVE in playoff DBPM (-0.3) and has a higher DRtg than Jordan and LeBron
You asked for it..
Playoff
DefRtg
LBJ: 102
MJ: 104
Kobe: 106
DBPM
LBJ: 3.2
MJ: 2.1
Kobe: -0.3 :lol
DWS
LBJ: 15.9
MJ: 12.4
Kobe: 7.3
LBJ 1st in all
Kobe last in all
LBJ > MJ > Kobe
Defensively
Next
1. Right. You can use things other than stats. The problem here is that you have to pick if the stats are meaningful or not. Meaning...why even use them for MJ if you don't think they are worth anything? By using them, you are giving them credence.
2. Superior teams? I don't know about that...I'd have to know how you are defining this...and would have to know how much credit you are giving to Shaq. In addition, coaching matters...having Phil Jackson was a nice luxury. As a Mavs fan...I'd rather Phil Jackson than Avery Johnson...wouldn't you?
3. Yes, Celtics were better in 08 despite the Lakers being the favorite. I agree. 2010? No, the Lakers were better all year. I disagree about 16...the Warriors were a historically good team that was coming off a title and the best regular season ever. This was not because people felt Lebron wasn't good enough...it was about the Warriors being all-time great.
4. I don't think it is all statistics at all. Lebron's passing and game managing was better than Kobe's. Lebron's ability to attack the rim was better. He was better defensively. He has better longevity as you've conceded. He was just a smarter player as well...didn't take as many terrible shots. Better transition player in terms of offense and defense. Better 3 point shooter as well. More durable and less injury prone.
I understand what you mean to say...Kobe was more skilled than Lebron..and I completely agree with that, but that doesn't translate automatically to better player. It can, but it doesn't here. Lebron was just a different level of an athlete than Kobe was and it showed in their impact.
5. Kobe went all out? Dude, post like 2011 he basically stopped trying at all on defense. Honestly, post like 2001 his defense fell off quite a bit in terms of effort. Again, read the Backpicks writeup on Kobe that details some of this.
6. Forget about winning? Are you arguing that Lebron somehow hasn't won a lot in his career? He's going to go down as one of the most winning players in NBA history. Not sure what you mean to say here.
7. Yes, Lebron was drawing dead in some finals. 07 for sure...and pretty dead in 15 because of injuries...and truly dead in 17 and 18. Are you actually arguing that 4th year Kobe is winning the 07 title on the Cavs? Are you actually arguing that Kobe wins titles in 15/17/18 on the Cavs? I mean, I'd get it if you were talking about 11...and I'd agree, but 07/15/17/18...that just isn't happening man. That was my point...you are holding things against Lebron that no player in history is for sure winning. Jordan, for example, would have a better chance, but he's close to dead in 17 and 18...if not dead...maybe he could have gotten 15...maybe.
But Kobe? The **** if he's getting a ring in 07/15/17/18...
[QUOTE=knicksman]Expecting rookie kobe to win it all. LOL. Bron stans gonna bron.[/QUOTE]
As usual, you missed the point mate.
:cheers:
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]As usual, you missed the point mate.
:cheers:[/QUOTE]
So rookie kobe playing with shaq is equivalent to prime lebron playing with superteams? LOL Whatever bro. No wonder you cant understand what 3ball is trying to say.
[QUOTE=knicksman]So rookie kobe playing with shaq is equivalent to prime lebron playing with superteams? LOL Whatever bro. No wonder you cant understand what 3ball is trying to say.[/QUOTE]
Nope, not at all.
The point was to show the inconsistency...like going hard after Lebron for losing the 07 finals...but making no comment about Kobe not even making the finals in 99 as the title favorite with Shaq.
You see, one should have to be remotely consistent in their arguments to be taken seriously.