Better at basketball, Jokić or Kobe?

[QUOTE=Baller234;15030877]He wasn't leaps better, but he was definitely better.

Wade was quicker than Kobe and faster off the dribble no question, but he didn't have the same raw fundamentals. With Kawhi it's the opposite. He has the fundamentals but Kobe is more crafty and creative.

They're both great players. The gap between them and Kobe isn't big at all. We're splitting hairs.

But I'm still giving Kobe the edge over them if forced to choose. Neither of them were visibly "better" and neither of them have the resume or the results to prove it.[/QUOTE]
Definitely better based on what? Because you say so? Wade had a better finals performance than Kobe ever had in 2006 and a better regular season than he ever had in 2009 too.

I'm a big Kobe fan but Jokic is getting to Mt Rushmore levels

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15030871]What's wild to me is you could never convince me Kobe was discernably better at his peak than guys like Kawhi & Wade, yet people try to lump him in with Jordan when he's clearly not on his level either all time or peak wise.

I honestly can't think of another athlete people try so hard to elevate to a level he doesn't belong at like Kobe, they frankly do a disservice to him by trying to do that.[/QUOTE]

And it's weird enough that early Wade was way closer to first 3 peat Jordan than any "Next MJ" ever was. He just wasn't granted the best franchise the NBA has to offer from day 1.

As good as Kobe was but he was a lesser version of post baseball Jordan and as you say people act like he's anywhere close to the peak version. He just isn't and there are quite some people between. Lebron and Jokič being two of those.

Kobe stans are weird. No other fanbase takes that much issue putting their guy at a spot they don't feel he deserves. Putting Kobe at 7, 11 or 12 all time doesn't change his career in any way, but they act like if he's put at 12 people think he sucked.

[QUOTE=Overdrive;15030889]And it's weird enough that early Wade was way closer to first 3 peat Jordan than any "Next MJ" ever was. He just wasn't granted the best franchise the NBA has to offer from day 1.

As good as Kobe was but he was a lesser version of post baseball Jordan and as you say people act like he's anywhere close to the peak version. He just isn't and there are quite some people between. Lebron and Jokič being two of those.

Kobe stans are weird. No other fanbase takes that much issue putting their guy at a spot they don't feel he deserves. Putting Kobe at 7, 11 or 12 all time doesn't change his career in any way, but they act like if he's put at 12 people think he sucked.[/QUOTE]

Don't take it up with us, take it up with Ty Lue. Take it up with the litany of HOF'ers and stars that would tell you you're wrong.

Let me guess, they're all retarded stans too? You guys know more than they do because you studied a graph and watched "Thinking Basketball"???

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Baller234;15030893]Don't take it up with us, take it up with Ty Lue. Take it up with the litany of HOF'ers and stars that would tell you you're wrong.

Let me guess, they're all retarded stans too? You guys know more than they do because you studied a graph and watched "Thinking Basketball"???

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

A quote about Jordan is proof to you that Kobe would be as good as some virtual Jordan Lue proposed. That's your kind of "facts".

dbl

[QUOTE=Overdrive;15030895]A quote about Jordan is proof to you that Kobe would be as good as some virtual Jordan Lue proposed. That's your kind of "facts".[/QUOTE]

Same interview:

[video=youtube;zMpm1UFwSUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMpm1UFwSUQ[/video]

Shannon tells Lue that some outlet had Kobe ranked 11th all time. You could tell by the look on his face and the conviction of his response that he has Kobe ranked a lot higher than that. He SNEERS at the thought of Kobe being #11.

You think he has Yolk top ten all time?? :oldlol:

Here is the video I posted in the other thread showing various hof'ers and stars echoing that Kobe is just below Mike. Multiple examples of guys who played against Kobe, Lebron and Wade... all saying Kobe was the best they faced.

[video=youtube;VvcmuUd6CHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvcmuUd6CHo[/video]

But sure, they're just retarded stans.

Yes they are retarded stans. Being a player doesn’t mean you can’t be biased.

Jokic

[QUOTE=Baller234;15030899]Same interview:

[video=youtube;zMpm1UFwSUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMpm1UFwSUQ[/video]

Shannon tells Lue that some outlet had Kobe ranked 11th all time. You could tell by the look on his face and the conviction of his response that he has Kobe ranked a lot higher than that. He SNEERS at the thought of Kobe being #11.

You think he has Yolk top ten all time?? :oldlol:

Here is the video I posted in the other thread showing various hof'ers and stars echoing that Kobe is just below Mike. Multiple examples of guys who played against Kobe, Lebron and Wade... all saying Kobe was the best they faced.

[video=youtube;VvcmuUd6CHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvcmuUd6CHo[/video]

But sure, they're just retarded stans.[/QUOTE]

As I said before. Being ranked 11th or 7th doesn't change anything about Kobe's skill or career. It's just how the creatora of such a list perceive his career.

Players mostly don't give a shit about "career" they see a player from a skill POV and ofc a contemporary will rank Kobe very high, but at the same time most contemporaries neglect the players who came before and do so for alot for the ones that came afterwards.

You'll have lists by players that are heavily biased towards their era and one maybe two idols they loved watching when they grew up. While players are surely more in touch of the game in itself journalists cover a way larger amount of time under the same conditions.

I think a mix of both views could be very accurate.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15030899]Same interview:

[video=youtube;zMpm1UFwSUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMpm1UFwSUQ[/video]

Shannon tells Lue that some outlet had Kobe ranked 11th all time. You could tell by the look on his face and the conviction of his response that he has Kobe ranked a lot higher than that. He SNEERS at the thought of Kobe being #11.

You think he has Yolk top ten all time?? :oldlol:

Here is the video I posted in the other thread showing various hof'ers and stars echoing that Kobe is just below Mike. Multiple examples of guys who played against Kobe, Lebron and Wade... all saying Kobe was the best they faced.

[video=youtube;VvcmuUd6CHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvcmuUd6CHo[/video]

But sure, they're just retarded stans.[/QUOTE]

None of these guys played against or with Jokic... If they did, they'd be saying the same shit about him

[QUOTE=RRR3;15030878]Definitely better based on what? Because you say so? Wade had a better finals performance than Kobe ever had in 2006 and a better regular season than he ever had in 2009 too.[/QUOTE]

Kobe FS '02: 27/6/5/2 on 62% TS%
Wade FS '06: 35/8/4/3 on 57% TS%

Kobe's 2002 finals gets overlooked because of Shaq, but he did it against the #1 defense compared to Dallas who were #11.

I think the conversation between Jokic and Kobe is close. Recency bias and the fact that Jokic is currently in his peak is skewing perception, in addition to the era that inflates numbers. I don't think for a second that Jokic is putting up a triple double if he's playing in 2001 or say, 2005.

Another thing that can't be left out of the conversation is that Kobe ran through a gauntlet nearly every season. Jokic has beaten what, two 50 win teams in his entire career in the playoffs? I still have him ahead of Jokic, though not by much.

That being said, I don't fault anyone for putting him above Kobe because Jokic has been the best player in the league for the last 5 seasons quite definitively whereas during Kobe's time, we can't really say the same.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15030956]Kobe FS '02: 27/6/5/2 on 62% TS%
Wade FS '06: 35/8/4/3 on 57% TS%

Kobe's 2002 finals gets overlooked because of Shaq, but he did it against the #1 defense compared to Dallas who were #11.

I think the conversation between Jokic and Kobe is close. Recency bias and the fact that Jokic is currently in his peak is skewing perception, in addition to the era that inflates numbers. I don't think for a second that Jokic is putting up a triple double if he's playing in 2001 or say, 2005.

Another thing that can't be left out of the conversation is that Kobe ran through a gauntlet nearly every season. Jokic has beaten what, two 50 win teams in his entire career in the playoffs? I still have him ahead of Jokic, though not by much.

That being said, I don't fault anyone for putting him above Kobe because Jokic has been the best player in the league for the last 5 seasons quite definitively whereas during Kobe's time, we can't really say the same.[/QUOTE]
Did you seriously just try to equate Kobe's '02 Finals, where they beat up on a scrub team that had literally zero chance of beating them, with Shaq averaging his usual monster 36/12, to Wade's '06 where he dragged the Heat back from the dead virtually singlehandedly averaging 40 over the final 4 games outscoring Shaq by over 20 for the series?

That's one of the wildest takes I have ever read :lol With any context and frankly just by the statline those Finals are genuinely tiers apart.

And imho record aside, Jokic beating the Suns & Lakers in 2023 was as difficult as any pairing of teams Kobe beat on his way to the Finals from 08-10.

lol. this would of actually angered me before the game 7 vs the thunder happened.

[QUOTE=Overdrive;15030943]As I said before. Being ranked 11th or 7th doesn't change anything about Kobe's skill or career. It's just how the creatora of such a list perceive his career.

Players mostly don't give a shit about "career" they see a player from a skill POV and ofc a contemporary will rank Kobe very high, but at the same time most contemporaries neglect the players who came before and do so for alot for the ones that came afterwards.

You'll have lists by players that are heavily biased towards their era and one maybe two idols they loved watching when they grew up. While players are surely more in touch of the game in itself journalists cover a way larger amount of time under the same conditions.

I think a mix of both views could be very accurate.[/QUOTE]

Lol.

So when someone dares to suggest that Kobe is better than you thought he was, it's because there's a secret agenda or bias. But when you guys suggest Kobe is some overrated hack, that's totally irrefutable because you guys just know more than everyone else.

Yolk is an amazing player and he would be great in any era, but you're comparing numbers across different timelines that have no business being compared in the first place. And even if you wanna argue that Yolk is the better offensive player, which is debatable, that still leaves defense. Kobe was elite on both sides of the ball. Yolk on defense is a sorry sack of shit and probably gives up 8-10 points a game due to sheer lack of effort.

Kobe never played in Yolk's era and Yolk never played in Kobe's, so we'll never know what their "numbers" would have been, nor do I care. I care about what they bring to the court as basketball players. Yolk is basically Larry Bird but with zero quickness and zero ability to penetrate. He's GREAT, but that's what he is. A bigger, a slower Larry Bird that is more limited 1 on 1 and doesn't play defense.

Meanwhile what's the worst thing you can say about Kobe. He has a bit of an ego and might take some ill advised shots. Okay fine, other than that he has no weaknesses or flaws in his game. Whatever perceived flaw you wanna harp on doesn't matter because ultimately it didn't matter. He won in spite of it.