How do you go about ranking Kobe Bryant?

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871225]Oh right, Kobe played with Shaq. How could I forget. I guess that means his rings don't count.

Oh that's right.

Dwayne Wade
Chris Bosh
Ray Allen

I'm sorry is this an all star team or was this Lebron's supporting cast!?!?

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Dude really just mentioned a 37 year old Ray allen. :oldlol:

And Wade was a 20 ppg player with knee issues when LeBron won titles with him. Averaged like 15 ppg during the 2013 run.

Kobe played with a peak Shaq who many feel had a top 5 peak of all time.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871225]Oh right, Kobe played with Shaq. How could I forget. I guess that means his rings don't count.

Oh that's right.

Dwayne Wade
Chris Bosh
Ray Allen

I'm sorry is this an all star team or was this Lebron's supporting cast!?!?

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Which of those guys were better than LeBron? LeBron never played with anyone who could carry him to a ring. Listing Ray Allen is so funny he averaged like 10 PPG with bad defense when he played with LeBron :lol

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871226]You realize LeBron is rated higher than Kobe by the majority of people now? The discussion has been MJ and LeBron for a long time now you’re stuck in 2012.[/QUOTE]

If you really wanna play that game then why do you think Bron is better than MJ? Last time I checked he routinely wins the polls whenever he's compared to Lebron.

You really are a walking contradiction.

:oldlol:

[IMG]https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/13654277_1078087672278788_4578678298561982474_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c2f564&_nc_ohc=cS7TWWBlHyEAX-0GKbg&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBKCKg5LXdDuY8mdZLJDIDLugClT1foY8BPViAnuKOxSA&oe=65C199A4[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871229]If you really wanna play that game then why do you think Bron is better than MJ? Last time I checked he routinely wins the polls whenever he's compared to Lebron.

You really are a walking contradiction.

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
I don’t think LeBron is better than MJ. You thought you had me. Oops.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14871230][IMG]https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/13654277_1078087672278788_4578678298561982474_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c2f564&_nc_ohc=cS7TWWBlHyEAX-0GKbg&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBKCKg5LXdDuY8mdZLJDIDLugClT1foY8BPViAnuKOxSA&oe=65C199A4[/IMG][/QUOTE]
But stats tho...

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14871230][IMG]https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/13654277_1078087672278788_4578678298561982474_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c2f564&_nc_ohc=cS7TWWBlHyEAX-0GKbg&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBKCKg5LXdDuY8mdZLJDIDLugClT1foY8BPViAnuKOxSA&oe=65C199A4[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Ah but you see LeBron turned them into scrubs. But they were still elite at the same time they were scrubs.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871223]You do not. For one, they track pretty much everything these days, from screens to distance covered, to hockey assists. For two guys who are highly impactful in terms of stuff that doesn’t show up on the traditional stat sheet (say Marcus Smart) do get their value reflected in analytics because of impact data. Impact data simply measures how well a team plays when the player is in, regardless of if they have a dominant statline or not. Stuff like this is how we know Derek White is a great player for instance.[/QUOTE]

Every stat you have out there is impacted by all the other players on the court. Bradley Beal is a cool example, as is Porzingis. It's very hard to measure beforehand how your pieces will fit together in reality. If it was merely a stats game, we would not need games at all. A few computers crunch the numbers and we have a champion before the season starts -- advanced stats tell us exactly what to expect. But it is not like that, and injuries are not the only reason for that.

Anyway, it has very little to do with not including Kobe in a top 20. If you don't you won't and that's okay. But coming with advanced stat upon advanced stat is not something that will convince many people (the ones that will agree didn't like the guy to begin with). It's much easier to say: I just don't want a guy like that on my team, so he is not top 20 for me. That's a totally valid argument, as these lists are not definitive.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871231]I don’t think LeBron is better than MJ. You thought you had me. Oops.[/QUOTE]

So then why do you think Lebron is better than Kobe? Kobe is not very far off from Mike.

What specific reason do you have MJ above Lebron? Stats?????

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871234]Every stat you have out there is impacted by all the other players on the court. Bradley Beal is a cool example, as is Porzingis. It's very hard to measure beforehand how your pieces will fit together in reality. If it was merely a stats game, we would not need games at all. A few computers crunch the numbers and we have a champion before the season starts -- advanced stats tell us exactly what to expect. But it is not like that, and injuries are not the only reason for that.

Anyway, it has very little to do with not including Kobe in a top 20. If you don't you won't and that's okay. But coming with advanced stat upon advanced stat is not something that will convince many people (the ones that will agree didn't like the guy to begin with). It's much easier to say: I just don't want a guy like that on my team, so he is not top 20 for me. That's a totally valid argument, as these lists are not definitive.[/QUOTE]
Yes +/- is impacted by everyone who is on the court that’s why they don’t just use raw +/- and they look at a players contributions in all the various lineups they play in. I never said Kobe wasn’t top 20 either that was the dumbass OP who if you back far enough you can see me arguing against.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871235]So then why do you think Lebron is better than Kobe? [B]Kobe is not very far off from Mike.[/B]

What specific reason do you have MJ above Lebron? Stats?????[/QUOTE]
Insane comment. Wow. Just wow.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871226]You realize LeBron is rated higher than Kobe by the majority of people now? The discussion has been MJ and LeBron for a long time now you’re stuck in 2012.[/QUOTE]

I we accept this to be true (and why not, let's do it) then we assume it to be important what the majority thinks. If it is, we should also accept their opinion on Kobe. He is most definitely top 10 if voted by the majority all over the world (same in the US). I'd say he is mire likely to be top 5 than top 10. But outside the top 20-25? By the majority? That ain't happening.

However, why is it so damn important what the majority thinks? They are wrong on many things, aren't they? Will they change my opinion when it comes to acknowledging talent in the NBA? Not really.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871238]I we accept this to be true (and why not, let's do it) then we assume it to be important what the majority thinks. If it is, we should also accept their opinion on Kobe. He is most definitely top 10 if voted by the majority all over the world (same in the US). I'd say he is mire likely to be top 5 than top 10. But outside the top 20-25? By the majority? That ain't happening.

However, why is it so damn important what the majority thinks? They are wrong on many things, aren't they? Will they change my opinion when it comes to acknowledging talent in the NBA? Not really.[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep accusing me of ranking Kobe outside the top 20-25? Is my username arbitrarywater. Pretty much everyone disagreed with him about that including me. I don’t care what the majority think but he was the one using that fallacious logic to begin with.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871236]Yes +/- is impacted by everyone who is on the court that’s why they don’t just use raw +/- and they look at a players contributions in all the various lineups they play in. I never said Kobe wasn’t top 20 either that was the dumbass OP who if you back far enough you can see me arguing against.[/QUOTE]

I used it as a generalization. (If you don't = If some of you don't = if one doesn't.)
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871238]I we accept this to be true (and why not, let's do it) then we assume it to be important what the majority thinks. If it is, we should also accept their opinion on Kobe. He is most definitely top 10 if voted by the majority all over the world (same in the US). I'd say he is mire likely to be top 5 than top 10. But outside the top 20-25? By the majority? That ain't happening.

However, why is it so damn important what the majority thinks? They are wrong on many things, aren't they? Will they change my opinion when it comes to acknowledging talent in the NBA? Not really.[/QUOTE]

3tard very much needs his opinions to be in line with the popular majority. He needs constant affirmation. That is why he so frequently cites majority opinion whenever he thinks he's winning an argument.

Unless of course his opinion is unpopular and stupid, at which point he will claim he doesn't care about popular opinion.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871241]3tard very much needs his opinions to be in line with the popular majority. He needs constant affirmation. That is why he so frequently cites majority opinion whenever he thinks he's winning an argument.

Unless of course his opinion is unpopular and stupid, at which point he will claim he doesn't care about popular opinion.[/QUOTE]
Are you truly so stupid you don’t realize YOU cited other people’s opinions as evidence Kobe was better? I was arguing simply with impact data before that.

Are you senile? Not being able to remember what you said a few posts ago is scary.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871239]Why do you keep accusing me of ranking Kobe outside the top 20-25? Is my username arbitrarywater. Pretty much everyone disagreed with him about that including me.[/QUOTE]

I didn't even disagree. I'm not sure he agrees with himself, I think it's more of a roleplay here on his part. Dude likes controversy. I have no problem with his thread though as I stated on earlier pages. I just don't necessarily believe he believes in what he says. He believes it is something that will generate many answers and he is right. I don't think he hates Kobe, he is way too young to be emotionally involved. But even if he does, it's okay. If he doesn't but genuinely thinks he is not top 20, so be it. Won't change anything.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871242]Are you truly so stupid you don’t realize YOU cited other people’s opinions as evidence Kobe was better? I was arguing simply with impact data before that.

Are you senile? Not being able to remember what you said a few posts ago is scary.[/QUOTE]

I did that only to counter YOUR side's argument you silly bastard. :oldlol:

You guys were the ones who swore Lebron was better because he "appeared higher on more lists".

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871243]I didn't even disagree. I'm not sure he agrees with himself, I think it's more of a roleplay here on his part. Dude likes controversy. I have no problem with his thread though as I stated on earlier pages. I just don't necessarily believe he believes in what he says. He believes it is something that will generate many answers and he is right. I don't think he hates Kobe, he is way too young to be emotionally involved. But even if he does, it's okay. If he doesn't but genuinely thinks he is not top 20, so be it. Won't change anything.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you can argue Kobe is outside of the top 20 in total career value added. Outside of the top 20 in terms of peaks is certainly arguable but if he was ranking just by peak he wouldn’t be so certain LeBron is GOAT. He can’t pick and choose when longevity matters as an argument. Kobe was a highly positive player for like 16 years (majority of those years an MVP level player) that’s a ton of career value added regardless of if his peak is too 20 or not.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871245]I did that only to counter YOUR side's argument you silly bastard. :oldlol:

You guys were the ones who swore Lebron was better because he "appeared higher on more lists".[/QUOTE]
That was 1987 not me and that was only one aspect of his argument although I’d concede it’s not a very good argument objectively speaking. Considering Kobe’s case over LeBron relies heavily on arguments like that though I fully understand why he used it.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14871248]I don’t think you can argue Kobe is outside of the top 20 in total career value added. Outside of the top 20 in terms of peaks is certainly arguable but if he was ranking just by peak he wouldn’t be so certain LeBron is GOAT. He can’t pick and choose when longevity matters as an argument. Kobe was a highly positive player for like 16 years (majority of those years an MVP level player) that’s a ton of career value added regardless of if his peak is too 20 or not.[/QUOTE]

He can argue whatever he wants. :-) Not many people will agree with him. There is a very slim chance he is Einstein, with whom at one time most of the scientific world disagreed on relativity. Most of the time you are not Einstein if you have a really controversial take. The younger you are the more you tend to believe you are the exception though.

The original question was 'how we go about' tanking Kobe. Well, I can only speak for myself. I saw all his career as I've seen plenty of basketball outside Kobe as well. I 'feel' he is comfortably top 15. And then it gets really tough. Greatness is not just 'being good at basketball and winning'. Greatness is in many ways 'how much you were touched'. I wasn't touched by Shaq. I was touched by Hakeem. Just these two examples. Which of these two were better or greater? I'd go with Hakeem, the general consensus (majority) would side with Shaq. And there were many many great players who also have the resume. It is very hard to really argue one player is top 10 and the other is only at #14.

Kobe outside the Shaq years from 2004-2013 won [B]2 rings, 2 finals MVPs, 1 MVP, 8 all-NBA first teams[/B]. He also got 6 all-D first teams but alot of those were reputation-based so assign whatever value you wish to that. The bolded achievements, however, fairly make for a top 15 career IMO.

How much higher he goes than that depends on how much value you assign to him being a #2(2000) or 1B( 2001, 2002) to Shaq for his first 3 rings.96-99 and 11-13 before prime and end of prime didn't create any positive or negative legacy bullet points.

Also, I read a comment above about Kawhi being over him? Kawhi's pretty impossible to rank because so much of his career has been marred by injuries. Now, 2019 Kawhi vs Kobe's peak is an interesting argument, but from a career ranking POV? No chance in hell.

Kobe is top 12 all time without a doubt.

You might not think his peak was top ten, you might not think his longevity is top ten, or his overall resume but combined together there are not 12 other players that have been better.

Signature players of their era

Russell/Wilt
Kareem
Magic/Bird
MJ/Hakeem
Shaq/Kobe/Duncan
Lebron/Steph

That's your top 12 right there. Kobe has to be included.

Jokic/Giannis will be on there next when their careers are winding down as the defining players of their era. We can have a discussion about Kobe being outside the top 12 at that point but not any sooner.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14871293]Kobe is top 12 all time without a doubt.

You might not think his peak was top ten, you might not think his longevity is top ten, or his overall resume but combined together there are not 12 other players that have been better.

Signature players of their era

Russell/Wilt
Kareem
Magic/Bird
MJ/Hakeem
Shaq/Kobe/Duncan
Lebron/Steph

That's your top 12 right there. Kobe has to be included.

Jokic/Giannis will be on there next when their careers are winding down as the defining players of their era. We can have a discussion about Kobe being outside the top 12 at that point but not any sooner.[/QUOTE]


I had something like this in mind when I said I 'feel' he is comfortably top 15. And I did add LeBron, Steph and Jokic. LeBron is obviously top 10, even if you dislike his game (I do). Steph and Jokic 'feel' top 15 to me. Jokic may need 2-3 years to prove this but I'd put money on him if I were a betting man. Giannis is again someone whose game I don't like. Not top 15 for me as of now but I admit I'm biased.

At any rate, it is fairly easy to fall out of the top 10. Not enough spots for all the great players I've seen. Even if I exclude players whose primes were before 1983-84 (which I do as I don't like rating players before my time and I was 10 at the time) and there is no Russell/Wilt/Kareem/Oscar/etc., there are still too many top 10 worthy players for it not to be a knock on someone to fall just short.

I've got him in the 10-14 range. I believe if I were to make my list, he's drop at 12.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14871289]Kobe outside the Shaq years from 2004-2013 won [B]2 rings, 2 finals MVPs, 1 MVP, 8 all-NBA first teams[/B]. He also got 6 all-D first teams but alot of those were reputation-based so assign whatever value you wish to that. The bolded achievements, however, fairly make for a top 15 career IMO.

How much higher he goes than that depends on how much value you assign to him being a #2(2000) or 1B( 2001, 2002) to Shaq for his first 3 rings.96-99 and 11-13 before prime and end of prime didn't create any positive or negative legacy bullet points.

Also, I read a comment above about Kawhi being over him? Kawhi's pretty impossible to rank because so much of his career has been marred by injuries. Now, 2019 Kawhi vs Kobe's peak is an interesting argument, but from a career ranking POV? No chance in hell.[/QUOTE]


I care much less about these achievements and categorized 1A/1B surface-level descriptions than others it seems.

They do very little in telling us how good a player actually played.

Theres still a million circumstances that go into that, so it makes little sense to compare from that basis.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14871293]

Signature players of their era

Russell/Wilt
Kareem
Magic/Bird
MJ/Hakeem
Shaq/Kobe/Duncan
Lebron/Steph
.[/QUOTE]

That's similar to how I see it but I wouldn't discount the first generation....and I would have them in a different order.

Mikan/Pettit/Baylor
Wilt/Russell/Oscar
Kareem/West/Havlicek
Bird/Magic/Moses
Jordan/Hakeem/Stockton
Kobe/Duncan/Dirk/Shaq
Lebron/Steph

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14871342]I care much less about these achievements and categorized 1A/1B surface-level descriptions than others it seems.

They do very little in telling us how good a player actually played.

Theres still a million circumstances that go into that, so it makes little sense to compare from that basis.[/QUOTE]

It's your thread. Feel free to drop a rankings list removing all the criteria you don't care about and focus on 'how good someone is', however you subjectively define that.

I don't particularly care a great deal about 'rankings' in general and prefer a tiered list approach. Circumstances of how a players career pans out and people valuing different criteria amounts to pissing up a tree.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14871360]It's your thread. Feel free to drop a rankings list removing all the criteria you don't care about and focus on 'how good someone is', however you subjectively define that.

I don't particularly care a great deal about 'rankings' in general and prefer a tiered list approach, specifically because of the circumstantial nature of how a players career pans out.[/QUOTE]

He will come back with stats. I mean: he MUST come back with stats. He is to young to have seen enough all time greats. And even if you did see Dirk's championship run at age 12, being 12 is too young for this on one hand and it means you missed most of Dirk's career when it happened almost entirely. Same with Nash, Kidd, Garnett, etc. And if you go back and watch games 'before your time', neither it is the same as it would've been in real time, nor it is 'all the games' or a reasonably large sample. There simply isn't enough time to do that. Plus most of those games are not easily available anyway.

What could I do if I had the task to rank players of the 60s and 70s? Stats... some footage... articles at the time... that's basically it. I woudln't stand a chance in a debate with someone who is e.g. 69 years old.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14871172]Wait I'm confused.

Before it was [B]"Lebron is better because of efficiency"[/B].

Then when that logic was turned on it's head, the argument transformed into [B]"Lebron is better because of TS%"[/B]

And now that THAT logic got turned on it's head, the argument has transformed yet again. Now it's [B]"Lebron is better because I've seen him ranked higher on other people's lists...[/B]"

[IMG]https://media0.giphy.com/media/J2DYCDA15pTau86IGr/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9520jazqxtz6a9ob7n3m4erjib6vgf37y93hdw11a64&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g[/IMG]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

If you really wanna break down skill for skill, Kobe is a far better one on one player and he's also better at playing off the ball. So miss me with all that fake advanced bullshit.

I respect Lebron as one of the all time great players, but his fans are the absolute worst and really don't know about dikk about dikk. It's really just stats stats stats with you guys.

It's close but give me Mamba all day.[/QUOTE]
had to log in to say that this is pretty ridiculous that this is exactly what happened :lol

not even a Kobe fan or anything like that but the dude really moved the goalposts shamelessly 3 times, and then of course resident Kobe hater RRR3 is over here cheering him on

shameless

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871363]He will come back with stats. I mean: he MUST come back with stats. He is to young to have seen enough all time greats. And even if you did see Dirk's championship run at age 12, being 12 is too young for this on one hand and it means you missed most of Dirk's career when it happened almost entirely. Same with Nash, Kidd, Garnett, etc. And if you go back and watch games 'before your time', neither it is the same as it would've been in real time, nor it is 'all the games' or a reasonably large sample. There simply isn't enough time to do that. Plus most of those games are not easily available anyway.

What could I do if I had the task to rank players of the 60s and 70s? Stats... some footage... articles at the time... that's basically it. I woudln't stand a chance in a debate with someone who is e.g. 69 years old.[/QUOTE]

The NBA is old enough that you just have to weigh what guys did in their era, or maybe do something like rank based on relative dominance against their contemporaries ( which is of course as subjective as all other criteria). Being north of 75 years, you could probably split the league into 4 eras at least based on rules alone. As I said above I prefer tier lists, because as time passes trying to rank players ends up being a game of musical chairs. Imagine trying to rank a player who was around in year 10 of the league with someone in year 90 when the time comes.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14871368]The NBA is old enough that you just have to weigh what guys did in their era, or maybe do something like rank based on relative dominance against their contemporaries ( which is of course as subjective as all other criteria). Being north of 75 years, you could probably split the league into 4 eras at least based on rules alone. As I said above I prefer tier lists, because as time passes trying to rank players ends up being a game of musical chairs. Imagine trying to rank a player who was around in year 10 of the league with someone in year 90 when the time comes.[/QUOTE]

Sure. I do it the tier-way myself. But with someone like Wilt, I cannot even do the tier thing. He was very good. Can I compare him with/to Tim Duncan? Absolutely not.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871363]He will come back with stats. I mean: he MUST come back with stats. He is to young to have seen enough all time greats. And even if you did see Dirk's championship run at age 12, being 12 is too young for this on one hand and it means you missed most of Dirk's career when it happened almost entirely. Same with Nash, Kidd, Garnett, etc. And if you go back and watch games 'before your time', [B]neither it is the same as it would've been in real time[/B], nor it is 'all the games' or a reasonably large sample. There simply isn't enough time to do that. Plus most of those games are not easily available anyway.

What could I do if I had the task to rank players of the 60s and 70s? Stats... some footage... articles at the time... that's basically it. I woudln't stand a chance in a debate with someone who is e.g. 69 years old.[/QUOTE]

I'm 61 and have been watching the NBA since 1977. I personally do not feel that Dirk belongs on that list.

I agree with "neither is it the same as it would've been in real time" especially when I hear the (young) Lebron fans' argument vs MJ. It's just different living through it in real time and I say this as someone who hated MJ (but still undisputed GOAT to me).

[QUOTE=rmt;14871371]I'm 61 and have been watching the NBA since 1977. I personally do not feel that Dirk belongs on that list.

I agree with "neither is it the same as it would've been in real time" especially when I hear the (young) Lebron fans' argument vs MJ. It's just different living through it in real time and I say this as someone who hated MJ (but still undisputed GOAT to me).[/QUOTE]

Dirk doesn't belong in the top 15 for me it was just an example. Kobe does. At least after 1980. He is not at the top of the list, that much I know. (I've been a Laker and Kobe fan for 20 years but I know he is not among the 5 best players I've seen since 1980.) But this is where is ends for me. Top 15, not top 5... and I'll have to leave it at that. But I guess it depends almost entirely on the way you want to look at it. His stats are worse than they could be for at least 4 reasons: strong defensive era, Shaq's presence, him being the end of shotcloc end of quarter shot taker and his own often times suspect decision making). But then again, greatness is a lot more than the ability to play. It is also how many people you toched and how much joy or something like that you brought. So Duncan may or may not have been 'better' than Shaq but he is definitely not greater. (At least this is the way I look at it.)

[QUOTE=rmt;14871371]I'm 61 and have been watching the NBA since 1977. I personally do not feel that Dirk belongs on that list.

I agree with "neither is it the same as it would've been in real time" especially when I hear the (young) Lebron fans' argument vs MJ. It's just different living through it in real time and I say this as someone who hated MJ (but still undisputed GOAT to me).[/QUOTE]

Sorry elementally morale - I meant John8403's list (with Dirk).

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14871372]Dirk doesn't belong in the top 15 for me it was just an example. Kobe does. At least after 1980. He is not at the top of the list, that much I know. (I've been a Laker and Kobe fan for 20 years but I know he is not among the 5 best players I've seen since 1980.) But this is where is ends for me. Top 15, not top 5... and I'll have to leave it at that. But I guess it depends almost entirely on the way you want to look at it. [B]His stats are worse than they could be for at least 4 reasons: strong defensive era, Shaq's presence, him being the end of shotcloc end of quarter shot taker and his own often times suspect decision making)[/B]. But then again, greatness is a lot more than the ability to play. It is also how many people you toched and how much joy or something like that you brought. So Duncan may or may not have been 'better' than Shaq but he is definitely not greater. (At least this is the way I look at it.)[/QUOTE]

Also( and this could be tangentially connected to Shaq's presence) unlike many other guys in your top 10/15 or whatever Kobe wasn't a 20ppg player till year 4( or 3 if you want to round up 19.9 in '99). Though even without Shaq 18 year old Kobe wasn't dropping 20 unless he was the featured player, and he wasn't at that level as a rookie. Alot of your all-timers came into the league ready to produce big numbers ( MJ, Wilt, Lebron, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem, etc) so their career stats wouldn't take a hit like Kobe averaging 7 as a rookie and 15 his second year. I can't think of anyone considered a top 20 player who produced like that as a rookie. I guess Garnett and Dirk if you consider them in that category.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14871374]Also( and this could be tangentially connected to Shaq's presence) unlike many other guys in your top 10/15 or whatever Kobe wasn't a 20ppg player till year 4( or 3 if you want to round up 19.9 in '99). Though even without Shaq 18 year old Kobe wasn't dropping 20 unless he was the featured player, and he wasn't at that level as a rookie. Alot of your all-timers came into the league ready to produce big numbers ( MJ, Wilt, Lebron, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem, etc) so their career stats wouldn't take a hit like Kobe averaging 7 as a rookie and 15 his second year. I can't think of anyone considered a top 20 player who produced like that as a rookie. I guess Garnett and Dirk if you consider them in that category.[/QUOTE]

20ppg is like nothing these days - I compare to era player is playing in. I remember a playoff game where MJ had like 5-6 threes in a half? (and he hated the three - said it takes away from his game). Imagine if he really practiced it the way players do today)?

[QUOTE=rmt;14871375][B]20ppg is like nothing these days[/B] - I compare to era player is playing in. I remember a playoff game where MJ had like 5-6 threes in a half? (and he hated the three - said it takes away from his game). Imagine if he really practiced it the way players do today)?[/QUOTE]

That's not really where I was going with it. I'm saying Kobe starting out averaging 7ppg impacted his career numbers, compared to other all-timers who were stronger producers out the gate, being more mature and NBA-ready.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14871376]That's not really where I was going with it. I'm saying Kobe starting out averaging 7ppg impacted his career numbers, compared to other all-timers who were stronger producers out the game, being more mature and NBA-ready.[/QUOTE]

I know - my comment regarding ppg was mostly to the current fans obsessed with stats.

[QUOTE=rmt;14871377]I know - my comment regarding ppg was mostly to the current fans obsessed with stats.[/QUOTE]

Cool. But as to your point, yes the bar on 20ppg has been lowered. There's like ( last I looked) about 40 guys doing that this year( same as last year). You got guys doing it now that the average fan probably doesn't even know, and will not sniff an all-star or all-NBA team.