Printable View
[QUOTE=tpols;14871023]The triangle wasn't Phil's concoction. He stole it off Tex Winter.[/QUOTE]
Steal? They were coaching the same team.
Anyway, this thread goes as expected. People who played with and against Kobe do and will have him in their top 10. The general public has him there, too. Fans of 'his era', people who are 40-55 now, more often than not have him in their top 10 (let alone 20). The new generation not necessarily. Thankfully, it doesn't change our memories.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14871029]I agree that Kobe is a lot better than his stats because efficiency depends on the shots you take. He was his team's designated tough shot taker which cratered his efficiency but looking at different categories of scoring, he looks pretty elite. Case in point iso scoring which comprises over a third of his attempts and he converts at 88th percentile. Also if you look at different areas of the floor, you can see he's anywhere from above average to superb in just about all of them.
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/zGhDwXfq/Kobe-Bryant-Playtype-2006-2010.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/DzgT5W33/Kobe-Bryant-06-10.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The problem was that a lot of those tough shots were taken with plenty of time on the clock. He loved taking long, contested jumpers.
[QUOTE=ImKobe;14871031]Yes, because Kobe wasn't a great passer and didn't have a bunch of hockey assists and passes that led to FTs for his bigs due to the triangle lol. Phil surely didn't say that KB was the best playmaker he had ever coached (better than Pip and MJ), right?
In 2013 under D'antoni, Kobe made the switch to PG mid-season (he was averaging 29.2 ppg on 57.18%TS through 42 games) with injuries & all and averaged 7.5 assists per game for a 36-game stretch until he tore his achilles.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
Kobe averaged more dimes under Dantoni than Phil, yet the Lakers were only the 17th ranked assist team.
So his production in the triangle despite being superb is actually deflated.
If we let him play in a dumbed down system and "westbrook" it he'd have even more dimes than the most in Lakers history outside Magic, but the team would've been worse off for it.
With Kobes size, athleticism and skill why didn't he have at least one season with a TS of 60%? :confusedshrug:
That isn't exactly a high bar and he never even got close.
[QUOTE=tpols;14871014]And yet we've seen just as bad from Lebron in 2011 where he refused to shoot and cratered his team in a huge upset loss (factually by the odds and context). Yet a lot of people still have him top 5 GOAT.
Kobe would've been by far the best player in your franchises history, but you're biased.
You kind of remind me of Xiao who said he would take Gobert over Kobe or Kidd.
It's just... purely irrational and not looking at the whole scope of things.[/QUOTE]
I never said that but I wouldn't expect anything less on ISH :facepalm
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14870977]Do you ever invoke an argument into your statement?
Why cant Kawhi be ranked above Kobe?[/QUOTE]
Did you miss my post that KL just doesn't play enough?
He has 2 rings - one averaging only 12.9/6.2 in RS and 14.3/6.7 in playoffs (he did have a great last 3 games of the Finals but 9/2 in both of the first two games). I gave him his props for TOR ring and his defense but in total - not anywhere near to jump over the entirety of Kobe's career.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14870983]You can look at rings last.
They have absolutely no value if you just go by them without first evaluating if the play to acquire those rings was higher and the reason for why that player has rings and the other does not.
Youre still too warped in the ringz universe.[/QUOTE]
Did you read my post where I have Kobe and Hakeem interchangeable at 10-11? That's 5 rings vs 2 rings with great individual play/defense/carrying.
And you place too little value on rings. How many great players have there been? How else is one supposed to evaluate them? The top 10 players have all had great individual play IN ADDITION to rings. If not for Ray's 3, Lebron would have 3 rings and 3 FMVP - Duncan would probably have 6 rings with 4 FMVPs. Would anyone then rank Lebron above Duncan?
30 ppg in the triangle is the greatest demonstration of basketball skill that I've ever seen from a perimeter player - it requires goat jumpshooting skill and post play coupled with no ball-domination and low turnovers
I've never heard of or seen a better demonstration of basketball skill and ability.. It elevated teammates, chemistry, coaching and ultimately team ceiling/Finals records - it was capable of winning the most with the least (repeating with a 1x all-star)
[QUOTE=3ba11;14871063]30 ppg in the triangle is the greatest demonstration of basketball skill that I've ever seen from a perimeter player - it requires goat jumpshooting skill and post play coupled with no ball-domination and low turnovers
I've never heard of or seen a better demonstration of basketball skill and ability.. It elevated teammates, chemistry, coaching and ultimately team ceiling/Finals records - it was capable of winning the most with the least (repeating with a 1x all-star)[/QUOTE]
Shaq peaked higher in the "triangle" than Kobe did.
[QUOTE=rmt;14871060]Did you read my post where I have Kobe and Hakeem interchangeable at 10-11? That's 5 rings vs 2 rings with great individual play/defense/carrying.
And you place too little value on rings. How many great players have there been? How else is one supposed to evaluate them? The top 10 players have all had great individual play IN ADDITION to rings. If not for Ray's 3, Lebron would have 3 rings and 3 FMVP - Duncan would probably have 6 rings with 4 FMVPs. Would anyone then rank Lebron above Duncan?[/QUOTE]
Only people not interested in doing the proper work will put heavy emphasis on rings. Its the simpletons go-to. Sorry.
They dont mean anything in-and-of-themself and theres nothing you can do to change that.
Ive seen Kobe dribble the clock all the way down on so many occasions that Id be dishonest to mysef if I was trying to spread this absurd "he always took the teams late shots!" narrative.
Its hilarious that his supporters decided to go with that as reason for his inefficiency.
[QUOTE=warriorfan;14870999]he made the adjustment to sag off of rondo to dare him to shoot because that was by far the weakest part of his game and it allowed him to cover a lot more space for help defense, and it worked.
you are talking to someone who watched the full game live, you aren’t gonna pass any bullshit off to me[/QUOTE]
No shit, but how do you take away that "he brought it big on defense" when he chose an assignment that allowed him to sag off a player?
Do you not have basic intelligence?
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14870985]No argument, as expected.
Yeah, I bet coaches dont care about their players being efficient either, right?
Makes no difference to them between deciding to start Player A or Player B.
:oldlol::facepalm
Stick to the OTC griffith[/QUOTE]
No you're right, efficiency is everything. The most efficient player is the best player always and without exception.That's why Shaq is the greatest player of all time. Even better than Lebron. Nobody was more efficient than Shaq on a regular basis.
Career FG%
Lebron - .505
Shaq - [B].582[/B]
Yikes, Lebron's not even close.
Sorry, the efficiency gods have spoken and judging from the numbers Lebron is not even on the Mt. Rushmore.
[QUOTE=Baller234;14871152]No you're right, efficiency is everything. The most efficient player is the best player always and without exception.That's why Shaq is the greatest player of all time. Even better than Lebron. Nobody was more efficient than Shaq on a regular basis.
Career FG%
Lebron - .505
Shaq - [B].582[/B]
Yikes, Lebron's not even close.
Sorry, the efficiency gods have spoken and judging from the numbers Lebron is not even on the Mt. Rushmore.[/QUOTE]
Shaq was like a 50% free throw shooter, that drastically cut his efficiency. Shaq & LeBron's TS% are pretty much equal to each other.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14871154]Shaq was like a 50% free throw shooter, that drastically cut his efficiency. Shaq & LeBron's TS% are pretty much equal to each other.[/QUOTE]
Bodybagged :oldlol:
Bawler should stick to raving about trans people, he is clueless about basketball. "Kobe top 2 all time" :roll:
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14871154]Shaq was like a 50% free throw shooter, that drastically cut his efficiency. Shaq & LeBron's TS% are pretty much equal to each other.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now free throws matter? I thought efficiency was the be all and end all? What happened?
Who's a better free throw shooter? Kobe or Lebron? Who's more likely to ice the game from the free throw line?