How do you go about ranking Kobe Bryant?

[Phoenix]

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.

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.

[elementally morale]

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.

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.

[rmt]

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.

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).

[elementally morale]

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).

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.)

[rmt]

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).

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

[Phoenix]

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.)

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.

[rmt]

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.

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)?

[Phoenix]

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)?

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.

[rmt]

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.

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

[Phoenix]

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

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.

[ArbitraryWater]

rmt is some old woman who doesnt really seem fit for this convo tbh


She doesnt get the finer things of the game at all. Dirk is a testament to that. Hes like an IQ test.

[elementally morale]

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.

I think Kobe is a great example of overdoing. He wanted to become great (which is absolutely fine) but he just 'worked too much'. Less would've been more, I think. He got to a point where he was more than good enough and the emphasis should've been on team play. He wasn't bad in that regard, at least not as bas as some people trying to prove he was. He won most of the time he had a good team. Shaq+Kobe worked (until it didn't but they were both too immature). Shaq+Gasol also worked. Some people say he had very bad Finals performances against the Pistons or when they lost to Boston. Not true. He wasn't as great as he was at other times but that's about it. Still has 5 rings and it could be 7 had he played better. But to say it didn't work is false. 5 rings is not nothing.

However, he wasn't really talented. Most of what he did was dou to hard work. And that was the trap he fell in. He thought: more work on his game, even better results. I wish he worked a bit less. On the other hand, his legacy is his exactly because of his / this grinding. I can absolutely understand why someone who was deeply touched has him in his top 5. And I understand the people who 'weren't there at the time' and don't really get what is/he was all about. It took me some time after his retirement and death to assess his career 'properly'. (Meaning: in a way I can agree with myself.) I arrived at this top 5-15 since 1980 thing. Let's say: top 10ish. If you want to argue #6 or #13, I'm fine either way. (If you have him at #2 or #23 I'm still fine but I won't agree. Between 5-15 I'll agree with anybody, I think.)

[elementally morale]

rmt is some old woman who doesnt really seem fit for this convo tbh


She doesnt get the finer things of the game at all. Dirk is a testament to that. Hes like an IQ test.

Or maybe he is not German. :-)
For a really really long time my all-time favorite tennis player was Becker. He was the one that touched me in my childhood. Was he better than Sampras or Agassi? I don't think so in retrospect.

[1987_Lakers]

I think Kobe is a great example of overdoing. He wanted to become great (which is absolutely fine) but he just 'worked too much'. Less would've been more, I think. He got to a point where he was more than good enough and the emphasis should've been on team play. He wasn't bad in that regard, at least not as bas as some people trying to prove he was. He won most of the time he had a good team. Shaq+Kobe worked (until it didn't but they were both too immature). Shaq+Gasol also worked. Some people say he had very bad Finals performances against the Pistons or when they lost to Boston. Not true. He wasn't as great as he was at other times but that's about it. Still has 5 rings and it could be 7 had he played better. But to say it didn't work is false. 5 rings is not nothing.

However, he wasn't really talented. Most of what he did was dou to hard work. And that was the trap he fell in. He thought: more work on his game, even better results. I wish he worked a bit less. On the other hand, his legacy is his exactly because of his / this grinding. I can absolutely understand why someone who was deeply touched has him in his top 5. And I understand the people who 'weren't there at the time' and don't really get what is/he was all about. It took me some time after his retirement and death to assess his career 'properly'. (Meaning: in a way I can agree with myself.) I arrived at this top 5-15 since 1980 thing. Let's say: top 10ish. If you want to argue #6 or #13, I'm fine either way. (If you have him at #2 or #23 I'm still fine but I won't agree. Between 5-15 I'll agree with anybody, I think.)

I don't know how you can say that. Kobe vs the Pistons was historically bad. 22.6 ppg on 45.6 TS% is horrific no matter how you slice it.

[Phoenix]

Some people say he had very bad Finals performances against the Pistons or when they lost to Boston. Not true. He wasn't as great as he was at other times but that's about it. Still has 5 rings and it could be 7 had he played better. But to say it didn't work is false. 5 rings is not nothing.

He was definitely bad against Detroit, playing hero ball to the tune of 23ppg on 38% effectively shot them out of the series. Granted, I still think Detroit wins even if they fed Shaq more but I doubt it's a gentlemans sweep. Malone being injured didn't help either, of course....