How do you go about ranking Kobe Bryant?

[rmt]

People forget that when debating who's the GOAT, you're talking about the greatest of ALL time. Not the greatest of THEIR time. Would Steph Curry be as great in the 60's if his shot wasn't worth 3 points? No he would not. He would have to be a totally different player.

If you can remove the three point line and reduce that person to a much worse player, then they can't possibly be the greatest of all time. Greatest shooter maybe, not greatest player. Being great at basketball can't just be all about threes.

No matter what era you put him in, Bean is doing work. With spacing and without spacing. With a three or without the three.

Here's a tennis analogy - with Federer and Nadal with this premise.

Without doubt, Federer's game put back in earlier eras when grass was the surface for 3/4 of the Grand Slam tournaments would result in a much greater resume. Nadal (who is basically mostly a clay court player - 14/23 GSs on clay) would fare poorly in this scenario. And yet, they end up in their era as "equivalent" resumes.

This is why I hate when the powers that be fiddle with the game (for the purpose of making money) by homogenizing surfaces so that the same players appear in the Finals and create rivalries (in past eras, clay courters didn't play Wimbledon and fast/grass courters didn't play French Open).

To me, this is the distinction between GOAT (more resume oriented) vs BETTER player (skills based). Steph cannot help the era that he was born into and the three point line or laxer defensive rules are not his "fault". Is he a result of adjusting to changing rules or has he changed the game himself? And does that impact "count" in GOAT points (similar to MJ's increasing popularity in the game)?

[ArbitraryWater]

Here's a tennis analogy - with Federer and Nadal with this premise.

Without doubt, Federer's game put back in earlier eras when grass was the surface for 3/4 of the Grand Slam tournaments would result in a much greater resume. Nadal (who is basically mostly a clay court player - 14/23 GSs on clay) would fare poorly in this scenario. And yet, they end up in their era as "equivalent" resumes.

This is why I hate when the powers that be fiddle with the game (for the purpose of making money) by homogenizing surfaces so that the same players appear in the Finals and create rivalries (in past eras, clay courters didn't play Wimbledon and fast/grass courters didn't play French Open).

To me, this is the distinction between GOAT (more resume oriented) vs BETTER player (skills based). Steph cannot help the era that he was born into and the three point line or laxer defensive rules are not his "fault". Is he a result of adjusting to changing rules or has he changed the game himself? And does that impact "count" in GOAT points (similar to MJ's increasing popularity in the game)?

What the **** are you talking about?

Grass has 1 slam and clay has 1 slam, youre saying "imagine if it were skewed to Feders preferable surface, how much better he would be!" as an argument?

lmao

[tpols]

With a healthy Bynum? Not bad actually. It's a small sample size, but the Lakers were 6-3 without Kobe from '08-'10

That's a moot point since Bynum was injured in those runs and didn't even play half the time. And that is a joke sample size. 9 games over 3 years isn't even remotely statistically signifigant.

We saw what the Lakers looked like went Kobe went down in 2013. Their stacked frontcourt got slaughtered and swept in the 1st round by the Spurs. And they wouldn't have even made the playoffs if not for Kobe.

[ShawkFactory]

That's a moot point since Bynum was injured in those runs and didn't even play half the time. And that is a joke sample size. 9 games over 3 years isn't even remotely statistically signifigant.

We saw what the Lakers looked like went Kobe went down in 2013. Their stacked frontcourt got slaughtered and swept in the 1st round by the Spurs. And they wouldn't have even made the playoffs if not for Kobe.

Probably wouldn't have made it past 5 (MAYBE 6) either way.

[rmt]

What the **** are you talking about?

Grass has 1 slam and clay has 1 slam, youre saying "imagine if it were skewed to Feders preferable surface, how much better he would be!" as an argument?

lmao

French championships have always been on clay. Wimbledon has always been on grass.

In 1988, Australian championships changed from grass to hard court.

In 1975, US championships changed from grass to clay (this is why Manuel Orantes and Guillermo Vilas [clay court players] won in 75 and 77). In 1978, it changed from clay to hard court.

So, from 1877 until 1974, all Grand Slams except French championships was played on GRASS. Baller234 mentioned Steph playing in the 60s. My analogy is Federer (and Nadal) playing anytime pre-1975 - their resumes would not be anywhere equivalent.

[hiphopanonymous]

He's a GOAT candidate of his era - and one of the best all around players and scorers and competitors to ever lace them up.

[ImKobe]

Ok, we will try to excuse him from those. But there are some elite players that went through their own injuries who were still able to put up good numbers on better ts or efficiency.

So if you look at '08-'10 Kobe and compare it to Miami Lebron, the averages are essentially the same in the POs (Kobe averages 3 more ppg while Lebron is a little more efficient, both in the high 50s in TS%), yet somehow Kobe was some inefficient chucker? Like what lol..

[HoopsNY]

So if you look at '08-'10 Kobe and compare it to Miami Lebron, the averages are essentially the same in the POs (Kobe averages 3 more ppg while Lebron is a little more efficient, both in the high 50s in TS%), yet somehow Kobe was some inefficient chucker? Like what lol..

Tough to include just 3 years vs 4. But throw in 2007 and it becomes somewhat more comparable since 2007 is more in line with Kobe's peak.

PS Kobe '07-10: 30/6/5/2 on 57% TS%
PS LeBron '11-'14: 27/8/6/2 on 60% TS%

LeBron was in the finals 4 years. Kobe was in the finals 3 years. Both won 2 championships and 2 FMVPs.

This is why I did that overlap of opponents they both had faced in similar years. I think it closes the gap because most people would say that was when both players were in their peaks.

[Gudo]

Anywhere between 5-12 seems reasonable to me

[Axe]

So if you look at '08-'10 Kobe and compare it to Miami Lebron, the averages are essentially the same in the POs (Kobe averages 3 more ppg while Lebron is a little more efficient, both in the high 50s in TS%), yet somehow Kobe was some inefficient chucker? Like what lol..

Not necessarily he is lmao. Although i was thinking of 2018 lebron (had a finger injury after game 1) in the finals when i mentioned that. But ofc, you won't consider the year since you will just think that he benefitted from inflation.

[elementally morale]

I despise Kobe and the way he was, I will admit it. In some ways it blurs my view of him, but I still try to be as objective as I can. I feel having him 8th attests to that.

Give me another player and I'll be glad to dissect them the same way.

Magic Johnson.

[ArbitraryWater]

French championships have always been on clay. Wimbledon has always been on grass.

In 1988, Australian championships changed from grass to hard court.

In 1975, US championships changed from grass to clay (this is why Manuel Orantes and Guillermo Vilas [clay court players] won in 75 and 77). In 1978, it changed from clay to hard court.

So, from 1877 until 1974, all Grand Slams except French championships was played on GRASS. Baller234 mentioned Steph playing in the 60s. My analogy is Federer (and Nadal) playing anytime pre-1975 - their resumes would not be anywhere equivalent.

What kind of useless analogy is that?


"If surfaces were supremely skewed to one players liking, their slam totals would be different!" lol?

[elementally morale]

What kind of useless analogy is that?


"If surfaces were supremely skewed to one players liking, their slam totals would be different!" lol?

You do understand it, the concept is not hard. If the environment suits you better you seem better than you would in a different environment. And vice versa. More indoor tournaments, more power to Becker.

[Baller234]

With a healthy Bynum? Not bad actually. It's a small sample size, but the Lakers were 6-3 without Kobe from '08-'10

Dude stop.

A team led by Gasol, Bynum and Odom doesn't accomplish jack shit. They're a 2nd round team at best, possibly even a 1st round exit. Gasol was a very good player but they are nowhere close to being a great team or an elite team. Add Bean to the equation and they become perennial finals contenders. 3 finals in 3 years, 2 championships in 3 years. One of those championships came from beating an all time great team.

I have Bron very high on my all time list. I think there is at least a case for him being #2 behind Jordan. I would personally take Bean but I don't consider it blasphemy. Bron is a very special player and a one of one.

But there are only so few players in history who you can say "Give him the ball and get the fukk out the way".

Bean is one of those players. Bron is not.

That's why I'm taking Bean.

[Axe]

Dude stop.

A team led by Gasol, Bynum and Odom doesn't accomplish jack shit. They're a 2nd round team at best, possibly even a 1st round exit. Gasol was a very good player but they are nowhere close to being a great team or an elite team. Add Bean to the equation and they become perennial finals contenders. 3 finals in 3 years, 2 championships in 3 years. One of those championships came from beating an all time great team.

I have Bron very high on my all time list. I think there is at least a case for him being #2 behind Jordan. I would personally take Bean I don't consider it blasphemy. Bron is a very special player and a one of one.

But there are only so few players in history who you can say "Give him the ball and get the fukk out the way".

Bean is one of those players. Bron is not.

That's why I'm taking Bean.

Kobe never won a title with a coach not named phil jackson.