Kobe Bryant is now officially a top 10 player of all time!

[QUOTE=D-Rose]But I mean it's ok that Jordan had the most talented team most years too right?:rolleyes: [/quote]

Most years? No. Maybe his second 3 peat.

[quote]Oscar put up great stats and was a great player but at the end of Kobe's career he will definetly be ranked ahead of him. Winning is what matters.[/quote]

Winning does matter, but so does context. First of all, he's one of the best college players ever. Second, he didn't force a trade to a top team and then win rings at an early age while he developed. He then wasn't on a team that pulls off deals to get the best and deepest team to ease the burden. All in all, while Kobe has proven to be a top player in the game, and one of the best scoring guards of all time, his road has been a lot smoother than Robertson's. I do value winning, but I also value the context of team success and how a player plays under those circumstances. I think Kobe, while being key to some of those rings, still has been in an incredibly favorable situation for most of his career that doesn't even compare to Oscar's situation.

[quote]Yeah, Dr. J had a huge impact on the game but his individual achievments aren't much greater than Kobe at age 30 if at all.[/QUOTE]
So, again you dismiss his ABA career? Considering his entire professional career, he's accomplished more and had a larger impact than Kobe.

[QUOTE=Showtime]Most years? No. Maybe his second 3 peat.



Winning does matter, but so does context. First of all, he's one of the best college players ever. Second, he didn't force a trade to a top team and then win rings at an early age while he developed. He then wasn't on a team that pulls off deals to get the best and deepest team to ease the burden. All in all, while Kobe has proven to be a top player in the game, and one of the best scoring guards of all time, his road has been a lot smoother than Robertson's. I do value winning, but I also value the context of team success and how a player plays under those circumstances. I think Kobe, while being key to some of those rings, still has been in an incredibly favorable situation for most of his career that doesn't even compare to Oscar's situation.


So, again you dismiss his ABA career? Considering his entire professional career, he's accomplished more and had a larger impact than Kobe.[/QUOTE]

I see what you mean and agree to most of it. Kobe isn't done though. he's still got more to win, his resume is not complete. I think this whole thread will be an easier discussion once he is retired.

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Uh, no. I don't place asterisks based on gossip and speculation.

Fact of the matter is in '99 it was a half season. Rankings were all f*cked up. Bizarre things happened in the playoffs as an 8th seed went in to the finals (just a coincidence this happens in the season where 40% of the games weren't played). If anything Lakers were hurt the most as Shaq usually doesn't get in form/shape till the end of the season and Kobe was still improving.

In '07 the real championship series was decided directly by the league's actions when they had the option to use better judgement.

These two years are probably the biggest asterisk years in NBA history, with '99 being the biggest.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE]BUT BROKEN DOWN STATS...Such as EFF, PER and Statistical +/- TELL THE REAL STORY.[/QUOTE]

Sir_Charles, how much "real impact" can a player who never won a ring have had?

[QUOTE=D-Rose]Isiah didn't have dominant men on offense but Laimbeer and Rodman are dominant in their own right.

You said it yourself Hondo won only one as the man. Never won League MVP. Played on the dynasty of dynasties. Career 21 PPG on 44%. Kobe has aready passed him in playoff pts, will pass him overall pts later on. Was a great player I totally agree, but I'm just showing where Kobe is ahead.[/QUOTE]
Yes and Kobe has only won one as the man as well. You could even argue that Hondo was the 1b guy in many of the runs along with Russel (as you can say for Kobe in 01). In the 65-66 season, he improved his numbers to 24/9/4 and in 67-68, he improved his numbers to 26/9/8 and led his team in points and assists during the playoffs. You mention he was playing on amazingly stacked teams but then you bring up his stats. Obviously playing on the stacked teams would limit his scoring since he would have less shots and possesions due to sharing the ball with guys like Sam Jones. I am not saying he is ahead of Kobe, but they are on par with each other.

Kobe's 4 rings>Hondos' 8. Hondo won 6 against only 7 or 8 teams. Making the conference semifinals today (only 8 of 30 teams make it there so you are better than 22-25 teams just be making it to the semifinals)>a 60's championship.

[QUOTE=chitownsfinest]Yes and Kobe has only won one as the man as well. You could even argue that Hondo was the 1b guy in many of the runs along with Russel (as you can say for Kobe in 01). In the 65-66 season, he improved his numbers to 24/9/4 and in 67-68, he improved his numbers to 26/9/8 and led his team in points and assists during the playoffs. You mention he was playing on amazingly stacked teams but then you bring up his stats. Obviously playing on the stacked teams would limit his scoring since he would have less shots and possesions due to sharing the ball with guys like Sam Jones.[B] I am not saying he is ahead of Kobe, but they are on par with each other[/B].[/QUOTE]
Agree, he was a great player.

[QUOTE=Showtime]Most years? No. Maybe his second 3 peat.



Winning does matter, but so does context. First of all, he's one of the best college players ever. Second, he didn't force a trade to a top team and then win rings at an early age while he developed. He then wasn't on a team that pulls off deals to get the best and deepest team to ease the burden. All in all, while Kobe has proven to be a top player in the game, and one of the best scoring guards of all time, his road has been a lot smoother than Robertson's. I do value winning, but I also value the context of team success and how a player plays under those circumstances. I think Kobe, while being key to some of those rings, still has been in an incredibly favorable situation for most of his career that doesn't even compare to Oscar's situation.


So, again you dismiss his ABA career? Considering his entire professional career, he's accomplished more and had a larger impact than Kobe.[/QUOTE]

Cool. I can respect that. But let me throw something out there on your whole "favourable situation" theory. Should Kobe and Shaq and Jordan and all the Lakers greats and many of the Celtics greats also be penalized for being in favorable positions? I see where you are coming from and I do respect players who succeeded against all odds, but I am just not sure how you compare that to other players who succeeded with a lot of help... succeeding in favorable conditions doesn't mean that you couldn't have succeeded in unfavorable conditions. Similarly, succeeding in unfavorable doesn't necessarily mean that you would have had more success in different, more favorable conditions.

I think what you have to look at is what each player did with the circumstances he was given. Based on that I don't think you can find much fault with Kobe Bryant with the exception maybe of him losing to the Suns after going 3-1 up and submitting to the Celtics a bit too easily maybe. Other than that he has mostly maximized his first three rings and then been back to the finals three times since and won once. Not bad. Not bad at all.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Kobe's 4 rings>Hondos' 8. Hondo won 6 against only 7 or 8 teams. Making the conference semifinals today (only 8 of 30 teams make it there so you are better than 22-25 teams just be making it to the semifinals)>a 60's championship.[/QUOTE]



But imagine if there were only 8 teams in the league this year....you take all the top players in the league and bunch them into 8 teams. I would say winning 8 championships in this stacked league would be pretty darn impressive. It would be significantly harder.

[QUOTE=Mor'Fiyah]Cool. I can respect that. But let me throw something out there on your whole "favourable situation" theory. Should Kobe and Shaq and Jordan and all the Lakers greats and many of the Celtics greats also be penalized for being in favorable positions? I see where you are coming from and I do respect players who succeeded against all odds, but I am just not sure how you compare that to other players who succeeded with a lot of help... succeeding in favorable conditions doesn't mean that you couldn't have succeeded in unfavorable conditions. Similarly, succeeding in unfavorable doesn't necessarily mean that you would have had more success in different, more favorable conditions.[/QUOTE]
Agree with this post. It's all hypothetical.

People say put Iverson on Shaq-Lakers it's a title.

I say put Kobe on Melo/Camby/K-Mart maybe it's a title Put Kobe on Rip/Stuckey/Sheed/Tay maybe it's a title.

[QUOTE=D-Rose]Agree with this post. It's all hypothetical.

People say put Iverson on Shaq-Lakers it's a title.

I say put Kobe on Melo/Camby/K-Mart maybe it's a title Put Kobe on Rip/Stuckey/Sheed/Tay maybe it's a title.[/QUOTE]

Its very hypothetical. I mean what if Phil Jackson never went to Chicago and Jordan continued putting up astronomical stats while never winning a Championship. Wouldn't that have put Jordan several rungs down the all time great list? Its amazing how in order to actually be considered the greatest of the great, how luck and the right circumstances had to align itself in favor of the player. I mean its very possible that Lebron could break every statistical record and never win a ring!

[QUOTE=Mor'Fiyah]Its very hypothetical. I mean what if Phil Jackson never went to Chicago and Jordan continued putting up astronomical stats while never winning a Championship. Wouldn't that have put Jordan several rungs down the all time great list? Its amazing how in order to actually be considered the greatest of the great, how luck and the right circumstances had to align itself in favor of the player. I mean its very possible that Lebron could break every statistical record and never win a ring![/QUOTE]


This is exactly why I think "top 10" lists are absolute garbage, and I will never make one in my life. I can only make a list of the "greatest players I have ever seen play" but that's about it. No numbering, no nothing.

I hate the 'what-if' scenario(s). If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Who would have known Stuart Scott knows something lol

Here's his list:[url]http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4259112&categoryid=2459788[/url]

He put it like this

1. Michael Jordan

2-7 (no order)
Magic
Wilt
Kareem
Oscar
Russell
Bird

8-10 (no order)
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan

Do what you will with the ordering after Jordan but that's fairly accurate except he forgot Hakeem :ohwell: :banghead:

[QUOTE=nnn123]This is exactly why I think "top 10" lists are absolute garbage, and I will never make one in my life. I can only make a list of the "greatest players I have ever seen play" but that's about it. No numbering, no nothing.[/QUOTE]

I think I actually agree with that. Technically its all subjective. If MJ is indeed the greatest player who ever played the game then why should that change based on whether he was in the position to win a ring or not? I mean, the reason people are so willing to drop Oscar RObertson from the list in favor of Bryant is because we put so much stake in winning, which is equivalent to putting stake in being lucky and in the right position with the right set of circumstances.

[QUOTE=nnn123]This is exactly why I think "top 10" lists are absolute garbage, and I will never make one in my life. I can only make a list of the "greatest players I have ever seen play" but that's about it. No numbering, no nothing.[/QUOTE]

Well, sometimes they spark arguments, other times good conversations, like this one...

If he is top 10 now and retires 5-6 years from now(lets say 8 if he just wants to stay around lol), where would you guys think he ranks then? realistically