How do you go about ranking Kobe Bryant?

[ArbitraryWater]

Ive obviously ranked him before and have established opinions on him, but I still find it as hard as ranking Russell almost.

Purely statistically, Bryant is not among the top 20-25 payers of all time. His situations have been favorable.

He was the clear #2 guy on a 3-peat team, in a role many other players could theoretically fill. Nothing about his 2000 or 2002 rings is noteworthy. He played in a big market and was hyped as the next Jordan and this would lay the bueprint to his career and following and fortunate reputation.

For very few other players could you make a simple team switch and ask, how much differently would he be revered if he played there?

If Kobe was on a team unfit to win his whole career and he has 0 rings, how much does he really have to show back on?

Then hes on his own, does his thing, gets team to low playoff seeds, doesnt do anything spectaculary in the playoffs and loses as underdog, as he usually did, never breaking the barrier.

Then he does win 2 rings on "his own", but being honest he was not better than James or Wade both those years. He was the only top 5 payer in the league with an all star teammate, so the seas basically parted for him. Top 5 payer + a star teammate is a almost historical requirement for a title. He drops off very quick after those b2b titles.

Nowadays with the huge talent influx, there are 2-3 SGs producing and outproducing Bryant, that game wise show little to no deficit, but theyre not in the same situation, or market, and no one would dare of hyping them up top 10 a time.

The ony time Kobe truly looked GOAT/top 10 ish was 2002/2003. The 2001 playoffs. And the 2006-2008 span could be argued. 2 years of which were peak volume scoring with little defense in one of the most inflated seasons ever (2006). 2008 was very mature and he lived up to his end of the bargain.

Purely game wise, production, impact, taken as a single unit, it seems Kobe Bryant does not necessarily fit to be among maybe the top 20 greatest payers ever.

But of course that seems weird to say over a guy who led 2 teams to championships (though in the future this will be the norm since even in just 50 years, 25+ payers will have led tite teams).

There isnt even much Longevity to speak of. Longevity should refer not just to playing, but to playing at a serviceable level. When we enter ATG standards, Kobe has like 8 superstar seasons. Even in his usual prime window from 2000-2013, he had shoddy off years in there (2004, 2005) which are quite frankly beneath that of a top 25 all time caliber player.


A nice scorer, selfish chucker, poor shot selection/efficiency, always covered by top rebounding squads and proportionally great supporting casts (relative to league average), little to no playmaking besides entry passes, became a lazy defender very early on, and was not often a good locker room influence and constantly made it tough on teammates. I forgot who it was who said he was really lucky it was Gasol who they traded for, he was just about the only one who woud have taken a his shit.

But he did lead 2 tite teams, was a top 5 player for about 10 years, and just a scoring machine.

[elementally morale]

Age is a factor here. Someone being under 30 now is not likely to see Kobe for what he was. I saw a chunk of Kareem's career but I could not 'rank him' properly. He was before my time and when he retired I was like 14. I just don't have a strong opinion of him. People tend to select most of their 'best players' from a group of people who were in their primes at the time when the individual was a later teen to very young adult. I'd say your 'favorite players' are usually from a group that played their best ball when you were between 15-25. We see this elsewhere, too. Music, movies. etc. One cannot be historically objective.

That being said, I take no offense if someone doesn't include Kobe in their top 10 (or top 20 for that matter). He was more important to me than he can be to someone who is my kids' age. I think you will have little luck with your 'not top 20-25' talk here. Some trolls will come to agree but that's it. I'd put him higher but I'm old enough not to take offense if someone does not.

[RRR3]

Kobe did not have poor efficiency, at least do your research

[warriorfan]

[ArbitraryWater]

Kobe did not have poor efficiency, at least do your research

I didnt know I needed to add relative to... you know... his all time rank contemporaries, the thread topic.

[SouBeachTalents]

Talking strictly peak for peak, which I think makes for a more interesting discussion regarding Kobe than where he ranks all all-time, I still think he was one of the 20 best players to ever do it. And while I do agree that people severely downplay those b2b title teams due to their weak roster historically speaking, at the time that was the best or 2nd best supporting cast in the league, and frankly blew away what the other top 5 players at the time had to work with.

Having said that, you kind of overly dismiss him winning b2b titles a little too much imo. We've seen plenty of guys in his situation not even come close to reaching those heights with comparable teams, either due to underperformance or injury, KD & Kawhi come to mind in recent years.

Just to see where you gauge him, you get to choose one of these guys or Kobe for a playoff run, which of them are you taking over Kobe.

KD
Robinson
KG
Barkley
Dirk

[RRR3]

I didnt know I needed to add relative to... you know... his all time rank contemporaries, the thread topic.

It's bad compared to LeBron or MJ, sure, but that's now who he should be compared to. His efficiency relative to league average was comparable to Hakeem, Duncan, KG, Dwyane Wade, Isiah Thomas and others who are ranked quite highly.

[ArbitraryWater]

Talking strictly peak for peak, which I think makes for a more interesting discussion regarding Kobe than where he ranks all all-time, I still think he was one of the 20 best players to ever do it. And while I do agree that people severely downplay those b2b title teams due to their weak roster historically speaking, at the time that was the best or 2nd best supporting cast in the league, and frankly blew away what the other top 5 players at the time had to work with.

Having said that, you kind of overly dismiss him winning b2b titles a little too much imo. We've seen plenty of guys in his situation not even come close to reaching those heights with comparable teams, either due to underperformance or injury, KD & Kawhi come to mind in recent years.

Just to see where you gauge him, you get to choose one of these guys or Kobe for a playoff run, which of them are you taking over Kobe.

KD
Robinson
KG
Barkley
Dirk

Yeah and I probably wouldnt rank KD over Kobe.

Guys just never cut it.


Kawhi is another issue.

How much sympathy/forgive do we apply for injuries?

Cause him not winning chips was usually not his blame (except for 2020 where he disappeared also). Peak wise Id definitely consider Kawhi a more challenging competitor.


A singular playoff run?

I dont see much sense in ranking for a singular playoff run. Its one run. Especially when said player who may even get the top spot here, not ever reach said heights again.


I think Dirks had a far more calming, harmonuous impact on his teams than Kobe and his swash buckle, disruptive, my way or the highway style.


But Barkley more or less hits the nail on the head.

Can I genuinely say Kobes best year or 5 best years top Barkleys 5 best? Not at all.

Id take him over KG cause I think KG was never quite equipped to be a go-to scorer at a championship leading level.


Id need to do some studying on Robinson again. I know he also has that weird RS/Playoffs gap, so did he get so much worse his RS edge gets lost, was there more context/sympathy to his case?....

But generally I wouldnt rank Robinson over Kobe, probably.

[ArbitraryWater]

It's bad compared to LeBron or MJ, sure, but that's now who he should be compared to. His efficiency relative to league average was comparable to Hakeem, Duncan, KG, Dwyane Wade, Isiah Thomas and others who are ranked quite highly.

Kobe from 1999-2013 had an eFG% of 49%. Birds was 51.5%. Magic was at 53%eFG. Hakeem was 51.6% through 1997. Duncan was 51% through 2013. Wades was 51% through 2014.

What are you imaginining here?


Isiah Thomas? lmao

[StrongLurk]

If we treat all eras equal (i.e Russell/Wilt), then Kobe is in the top 7-10 all time for me. If we remove Russell/Wilt, then Kobe can be top 5-8.

I think the biggest deciding factor in Kobe's ranking is how you view his DEFENSE. If you think he is overrated defensively (I do), then he simply can't be a top five player of all time. BUT, if you think Kobe's 12 all-nba defense awards are legit, then I can see why people put him in the top 5 all time.

I am always amused at how so many Kobe stans ignore Duncan though

Duncan has the same amount of rings as Kobe, but more MVPs, more FMVPs, more all-nba defense awards, and the same amount of all-nba teams (15). If we value these accolades highly, then you can argument Kobe isn't even better than Tim Duncan.

[ArbitraryWater]

If we treat all eras equal (i.e Russell/Wilt), then Kobe is in the top 7-10 all time for me. If we remove Russell/Wilt, then Kobe can be top 5-8.

I think the biggest deciding factor in Kobe's ranking is how you view his DEFENSE. If you think he is overrated defensively (I do), then he simply can't be a top five player of all time. BUT, if you think Kobe's 12 all-nba defense awards are legit, then I can see why people put him in the top 5 all time.

I am always amused at how so many Kobe stans ignore Duncan though

Duncan has the same amount of rings as Kobe, but more MVPs, more FMVPs, more all-nba defense awards, and the same amount of all-nba teams (15). If we value these accolades highly, then you can argument Kobe isn't even better than Tim Duncan.

You cant set a standardized measure and then end it with "for me", takes away the purpose of the "if we all account for..."...


but what do you even mean by that? Why would Kobe be 7-10 then?

[RRR3]

Kobe from 1999-2013 had an eFG% of 49%. Birds was 51.5%. Magic was at 53%eFG. Hakeem was 51.6% through 1997. Duncan was 51% through 2013. Wades was 51% through 2014.

What are you imaginining here?


Isiah Thomas? lmao

Why are you using eFG% instead of TS%? You can't just take out FTs if you're measuring efficiency.

[ArbitraryWater]

Why are you using eFG% instead of TS%? You can't just take out FTs if you're measuring efficiency.

TS% completely overvalues FTs. You can just look at the massive difference between eFG% and TS%, it doesnt make any sense.


You can use TS% to coddle him.

But dont come in here and try to tell anyone its superior.


Weve all seen Kobe his whole career or a large portion of it or seen many of his games one way or another... Im now supposed to believe my eyes were deceiving me cause TS% says he was pretty efficient? Sure, he wasnt a net negative by any means, but he was clearly not as efficient as any of the guys I mentioned there.


Kobe also got more bogus FTs than anyone Ive ever seen, another reason why its real easy to just dismiss that for Kobe.

[tpols]

Imagine you spend your whole life playing basketball, get drafted to the NBA out of High School, win 5 rings as an All NBA talent and 4 as MVP caliber amongst countless other accolades...

And some German nerd born in like 1998 who didn't start watching American ball til probably 2010 says you ain't shit and should be ranked dramatically lower than what even the most insane people would declare.

That's what we're dealing with right here folks.

[elementally morale]

Imagine you spend your whole life playing basketball, get drafted to the NBA out of High School, win 5 rings as an All NBA talent and 4 as MVP caliber amongst countless other accolades...

And some German nerd born in like 1998 who didn't start watching American ball til probably 2010 says you ain't shit and should be ranked dramatically lower than what even the most insane people would declare.

That's what we're dealing with right here folks.

Cutting him some slack, I think he does these things mainly to create 'controversy'. I'm not sure this is what he really thinks and I'm not even sure that deep down he 'knows' this to be true. For him it's some hot topics some of the time, which is fine by me. Using a discussion board for... discussion. And if many people disagree it's at least 'a topic'. AW in this sense is someone playing the villain in mainstream media. The guy that has the role to mix things up with some controversial takes. Close to attention whoring but not quite there. The take here AW makes is hard to defend but he does a decent job at it. Does he hate Kobe? I don't think so. Most of Kobe's career had been over by the time AW got into watching basketball. It's just 'something that works' for him. And again, he does a decent job. Does he agree with himself, bullet to the head if not? I'm not sure. But it ain't that important anyway.