How do you go about ranking Kobe Bryant?

[guy]

I value defense, and less so longevity. That being said, Kobe's advantage on defense over those two (which only exists for quick point of attack players as the other two would be better at guarding bigger players) would not overcome the advantage that Bird and Magic bring to the rest of the game. I think a similar modern comparison would be Giannis vs Jokic. Bird/Magic/Jokic bring a strong culture and cohesion that permeates the whole team's attitude and is very conducive to winning. Kobe and Giannis are outstanding individual talents that don't elevate their teammates to the same degree.

I think its arguable between the 3. One thing to think they're better, but people act like they're on a whole other tier. Thats absurd to me. Kobe's also not just a better defender, he's clearly a better scorer, and he's easily greater when it comes to longevity, especially Bird.

You can easily argue Giannis over Jokic. In fact, I would say up until last year, Giannis was the better player year-to-year, he has been relevant longer (all-star since 2017, Jokic has been since 2019) and he's easily the better defender. So from a career standpoint, I'd probably still say Giannis is greater.

[Phoenix]

Sidenote but, if there’s one player I really waffle on, it’s KG. No one without an agenda can look at the rosters and situations surrounding him in his first 12 years (iow, most of his prime) and argue he should’ve eked a title. He was flanked with a terrible supporting cast (aside from perhaps ‘04) and one of the worst owners in league history. I still think he was a tier below Duncan, but is it entirely coincidental that once their supporting casts were basically equalized, so too was their output and effect on winning (well, more or less)? No one had a more wasted prime. If I had a bit more conviction I’d probably lump him in with Kobe. But I don’t, so I won’t. Ergo, 11-14.

Yeah, we pretty much saw what peak KG could do when he had good support( WCFs in 2004, his MVP year) and I'm sure he could have done more with Ginobi/Parker and the rest of the Spurs cast that won titles. If I had to guess, peak KG could have won that 99 chip with end of prime Robinson, and the 2014 title with Kawhi, Parker, Ginobli and co. I don't think he duplicates what Duncan did in 2003 staring down Shaq in the post, and I don't think he wins in 2005 or 2007 with what the West conference was at that point. So a possible 2 titles out of the 5 Duncan one( which speaks to what you said about a tier below). Maybe more like a half a tier, mainly because KG was at best what I would call a very good scorer but not really a dominant one. Duncan's peak scoring averages weren't a level above, but he could anchor your offense from the post. KG didn't have that type of offensive game so he was best as a 1B scoring option who could quarterback the defense( like the 2008 Celtics).

[SouBeachTalents]

Yeah, we pretty much saw what peak KG could do when he had good support( WCFs in 2004, his MVP year) and I'm sure he could have done more with Ginobi/Parker and the rest of the Spurs cast that won titles. If I had to guess, peak KG could have won that 99 chip with end of prime Robinson, and the 2014 title with Kawhi, Parker, Ginobli and co. I don't think he duplicates what Duncan did in 2003 staring down Shaq in the post, and I don't think he wins in 2005 or 2007 with what the West conference was at that point. So a possible 2 titles out of the 5 Duncan one( which speaks to what you said about a tier below). Maybe more like a half a tier, mainly because KG was at best what I would call a very good scorer but not really a dominant one. Duncan's peak scoring averages weren't a level above, but he could anchor your offense from the post. KG didn't have that type of offensive game so he was best as a 1B scoring option who could quarterback the defense( like the 2008 Celtics).

I'm curious why you feel that way, ESP '07 when they received a huge break against their only legit opponent, then had an absolute cakewalk the last 2 rounds of the playoffs. And in regards to '05, it'd be hard to imagine KG playing much worse offensively than Duncan did in the Finals.

[Phoenix]

I'm curious why you feel that way, ESP '07 when they received a huge break against their only legit opponent, then had an absolute cakewalk the last 2 rounds of the playoffs. And in regards to '05, it'd be hard to imagine KG playing much worse offensively than Duncan did in the Finals.

I'm between two minds on 2007, ultimately I leaned no. Yes that series against the Suns was very controversial but I'm not convinced the Spurs wouldn't have won regardless, would have been a close call one way or another. 2005, I could see KG struggling moreso against that Pistons frontline. You had guys like Rasheed and McDyess there who could physically match up with him, Prince as a quicker lateral defender with good length, and Wallace in the back.

Those aren't hard-coded takes on my part, I just don't feel particularly as strong about those years as I do 99 and 2014. The thing is, the call between them at their respective best probably comes down to specific things that Duncan may have weathered better than any tangible gap in talent or ability. Duncan had a strong lower base which made him more ideal for more physical playoff basketball, but we're talking minute stuff where the ball bounces a bit differently in certain situations affecting the end result.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm between two minds on 2007, ultimately I leaned no. Yes that series against the Suns was very controversial but I'm not convinced the Spurs wouldn't have won regardless, would have been a close call one way or another. 2005, I could see KG struggling moreso against that Pistons frontline. You had guys like Rasheed and McDyess there who could physically match up with him, Prince as a quicker lateral defender with good length, and Wallace in the back.

Those aren't hard-coded takes on my part, I just don't feel particularly as strong about those years as I do 99 and 2014.

I feel like '07 is as easy of a title (outside of KD on the Warriors ) that a superstar could win. Just FYI in 3 games that season, KG averaged 34/15 on 62% against Phoenix, of course it's all pure speculation, but I would find it hard to believe a guy who busted them up during the regular season couldn't have won on that Spurs team, esp with Phoenix getting shafted with the suspensions. Then you follow that up with probably the easiest final 2 opponents any title team has faced in decades, personally, I would be quite confident KG could seal the deal that season.

I agree '05 is not as clear cut, but if you look at how KG performed h2h against Detroit in '04 & '05 compared to Duncan, he fared much better.

[Phoenix]

I feel like '07 is as easy of a title (outside of KD on the Warriors ) that a superstar could win. Just FYI in 3 games that season, KG averaged 34/15 on 62% against Phoenix, of course it's all pure speculation, but I would find it hard to believe a guy who busted them up during the regular season couldn't have won on that Spurs team, esp with Phoenix getting shafted with the suspensions. Then you follow that up with probably the easiest final 2 opponents any title team has faced in decades, personally, I would be quite confident KG could seal the deal that season.

He does in 2007 if he can duplicate the season success you mention in the playoffs against the Suns and if it's a fairly seamless plug and play overall, because the Spurs with KG are a different team than with Duncan even if the two may have been roughly in the same tier at their respective bests. The playoffs present different challenges when you're playing a team over a fortnight and you're specifically game-planning and making adjustments, so hard to definitely make the call on this alternative scenario. Amare isn't considered on those guys level overall, but in 2007 he's trading blows with them both and it would be interesting to see a matchup with KG. But yeah, the Cavs in the finals aren't providing much resistance assuming a KG Spurs squad gets out of the west.

[rmt]

2005 Game 7 had 14 personal fouls on Ben, Rasheed and McDyess - they used up their fouls defending Duncan. IMO, KG would have struggled more against Detroit's frontline. And I still maintain that series would have been easier if Pop had tried Bowen on Chauncey and Parker on Rip.

2007 Spurs' run was pretty easy once they got past Suns (who Spurs pretty much always had their way with) - witnessed by Pop's fist pump exiting the court in last win - he knew that was championship.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Yeah, we pretty much saw what peak KG could do when he had good support( WCFs in 2004, his MVP year) and I'm sure he could have done more with Ginobi/Parker and the rest of the Spurs cast that won titles. If I had to guess, peak KG could have won that 99 chip with end of prime Robinson, and the 2014 title with Kawhi, Parker, Ginobli and co. I don't think he duplicates what Duncan did in 2003 staring down Shaq in the post, and I don't think he wins in 2005 or 2007 with what the West conference was at that point. So a possible 2 titles out of the 5 Duncan one( which speaks to what you said about a tier below). Maybe more like a half a tier, mainly because KG was at best what I would call a very good scorer but not really a dominant one. Duncan's peak scoring averages weren't a level above, but he could anchor your offense from the post. KG didn't have that type of offensive game so he was best as a 1B scoring option who could quarterback the defense( like the 2008 Celtics).

Great post.

Yeah, Garnett’s uniquely distributed skillset make him a hard one to really pin down. Most fans are first-option-scoring-biased and Garnett’s one of the few post-Russell greats that could’ve spearheaded a dynastic team without really great scoring. The only problem is that, fair or not, he didn’t actually prove it. So even though I can easily imagine a world where, for instance, a Wolves-bound Kobe and Lakers-bound Garnett end up swapping title counts, Kobe’s real-life contributions on 5 title-winning teams temper these considerations.

That said, I too like me some hypotheticals, so:

Definitely agree that Garnett wouldn’t go 5/5 if his corresponding versions were superimposed on to each of those title-winning teams, but that’s somewhat luck-based (as you kind of touch on in later posts). I don’t think one could reasonably expect even Duncan to replicate all 5 wins each time, if do-overs were forced — if you reset the deck then even seasons like ‘03 are in question, since both C-Webb and Dirk were felled by injury that year.

Imo a Garnett-led Spurs team would have strong chances in all 5 years (he was basically washed in ‘14, but I imagine Duncan might’ve been too by then, if he assumed KG’s workload in Minny) but probably win 2 or 3 of those, as you say. 4 is possible, but probably a 90th-95th percentile outcome, or thereabouts.

However, who’s to say he couldn’t earn some ground back in the remaining years, the ones where TD didn’t win? The Spurs had a vastly superior defensive supporting cast in ‘04, and this was KG’s best year. Likewise the ‘10-‘11 Spurs probably would’ve fared better with KG that year, all else remaining the same. TD was terrible against the Grizz and had his worst regular season up to that point.

So, we diverge on some of the particulars but seem to be aligned on their general standing as players.

[Baller234]

I just think overall, people get far too caught up in stats. To me they have always been nothing more than a reference point.

Two things that people need to always remember:

- It's a team game, not an individual game
- The goal is not to rack up stats, the goal is to win

Being great means knowing how to win. It means knowing when to take over as well as knowing when to defer. There are countless variables that go totally unnoticed in the box score. It's something you can gauge only from actually watching the game with your own eyes.

Not to go off on a tangent, but a player that comes to mind for me is Penny Hardaway. If you weren't alive to see him you simply wouldn't know how great he was because his stats don't reflect that of a dominant individual player. But if you actually watched him play you just know. He led but he led from behind, and if you ask me he truly was one of the best players I've ever seen play.

But you would never know that looking at his stats.

[Phoenix]

Great post.

Yeah, Garnett’s uniquely distributed skillset make him a hard one to really pin down. Most fans are first-option-scoring-biased and Garnett’s one of the few post-Russell greats that could’ve spearheaded a dynastic team without really great scoring. The only problem is that, fair or not, he didn’t actually prove it. So even though I can easily imagine a world where, for instance, a Wolves-bound Kobe and Lakers-bound Garnett end up swapping title counts, Kobe’s real-life contributions on 5 title-winning teams temper these considerations.

That said, I too like me some hypotheticals, so:

Definitely agree that Garnett wouldn’t go 5/5 if his corresponding versions were superimposed on to each of those title-winning teams, but that’s somewhat luck-based (as you kind of touch on in later posts). I don’t think one could reasonably expect even Duncan to replicate all 5 wins each time, if do-overs were forced — if you reset the deck then even seasons like ‘03 are in question, since both C-Webb and Dirk were felled by injury that year.

Imo a Garnett-led Spurs team would have strong chances in all 5 years (he was basically washed in ‘14, but I imagine Duncan might’ve been too by then, if he assumed KG’s workload in Minny) but probably win 2 or 3 of those, as you say. 4 is possible, but probably a 90th-95th percentile outcome, or thereabouts.

However, who’s to say he couldn’t earn some ground back in the remaining years, the ones where TD didn’t win? The Spurs had a vastly superior defensive supporting cast in ‘04, and this was KG’s best year. Likewise the ‘10-‘11 Spurs probably would’ve fared better with KG that year, all else remaining the same. TD was terrible against the Grizz and had his worst regular season up to that point.

So, we diverge on some of the particulars but seem to be aligned on their general standing as players.

Yes, I would say that's true for all these outcomes. They happened as they happened but replaying them doesn't necessarily mean the same outcomes as you said. We've seen too many titles over the years decided literally by a bounce here and there, a timely play, an untimely call. These things operate on a fine edge in many cases. It's funny that you mentioned the 2004 team because my mind did briefly ponder what would happen if KG was with the Spurs instead of Duncan. Does KG take out the Lakers with that 2004 Spurs cast, and then what does he do against that Pistons squad, without looking at stats I wager the peak of those early-mid 2000's Detroit teams?

What's your thoughts on Dirk? He was the least versatile of the top 3 PFs of the era with the aforementioned two, but arguably the best offensive anchor. Dirk needed interior defense, wing defenders and rebounding to supplement what he did well. I'm curious as to how he fares with those 99 and 03 Spurs teams with an end of prime/past prime Admiral and the respective rosters. Of course all of these scenarios depend on which version/year of these guys we're referring to. But circumstances most certainly have nearly infinite 'what-if' scenarios with how the title picture can shake out if you swap guys at this level around.

[LAL]

Good thread btw, sparked some nice discussion. Kobe is and probably always will be a polarizing player. He is a poster-boy (for better and worse) of two separate schools of thought/types of fans. Even just my own opinion about him as a basketball player has swung wildly — as a kid I regularly watched him play foil to my Kings, and held him in the highest esteem as a result. As time wore on I could no longer entertain the idea of him holding off LeBron in the all-time rankings, much as I tried (believe it or not, I was a huge LeBron hater right up to my late teens).

Now, well, I still think he’s nowhere near LeBron (lol), but nonetheless believe the analytics-adjacent folks actually underrate him. I recently heard the Wages of Wins folks claim he isn’t a Top 25 player OAT and had to do a double and triple-take. The less poindexter-y ones like Taylor can see the forest for the trees (his characterization of Kobe’s “inelastic offence” persuasively argues that he received too much flak for his supposed “inefficiency”)…but they’re not always the norm. Kobe had a very balanced floor game with a lot hidden strengths (turnover economy, sneaky-great court vision, good rebounding for a guard) and also authored a handful of high-quality defensive seasons. If his offensive and defensive peaks overlapped, I’d have him in my Top 8. If he actually earned *all* of those All-D selections, he’s pushing Top 5…but we know he didn’t. Currently, these are the guys I rank ahead:

Jordan
LBJ
KAJ
Russell
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Magic
Bird
Wilt

He is in the next cluster of players, roughly interchangeable with West, Big O and Curry.

So, he’s somewhere in the 11-14 slots.

Sidenote but, if there’s one player I really waffle on, it’s KG. No one without an agenda can look at the rosters and situations surrounding him in his first 12 years (iow, most of his prime) and argue he should’ve eked a title. He was flanked with a terrible supporting cast (aside from perhaps ‘04) and one of the worst owners in league history. I still think he was a tier below Duncan, but is it entirely coincidental that once their supporting casts were basically equalized, so too was their output and effect on winning (well, more or less)? No one had a more wasted prime. If I had a bit more conviction I’d probably lump him in with Kobe. But I don’t, so I won’t. Ergo, 11-14.

Cool story bro, thx.

[Da_Realist]

Having said that, Kobe is tough to rank for me. Since I consider peak play the most, I have Wade above him. I'm open to changing that, but it is what it is. My lists are always a mess and constantly changing.

Interesting... Reading through laughing at some of these comments but this one definitely caught me off guard. Peak for peak? I'm leaning toward Kobe. Kobe could do more things while Wade was more relentless putting pressure on the defense. I need to think about this one.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Interesting... Reading through laughing at some of these comments but this one definitely caught me off guard. Peak for peak? I'm leaning toward Kobe. Kobe could do more things while Wade was more relentless putting pressure on the defense. I need to think about this one.

Yep, kinda with Hoops on this one.

Peak Wade is right there with Kobe AND Lebron, just as I said earlier in the thread. Would argue a slightly more impactful player than Kobe, because of how he performed vs elite defenses.

Peak/Prime Wade was playing with pretty mediocre rosters in 2009 and 2010. Never detered him from obliterating the league though. I remember during that entire 2010 season, Wade solo dolo'd the "super team" Celtics lol. Not sure he had one bad game vs them. And when seeing them in the playoffs, Wade put up 33/7/6/2/2...on 56% FG and 40% from three. Dude was a monster.

[kawhileonard2]

Most have Kobe over Lebron because he won with the franchise he played for more so and didn't go and stack the deck. Also didn't win bronze medals.

[AlphaWolf24]

Good to see Kobe still at the top of ISH forums….still


Always overthinking rankings…..

MJ

Kobe

Magic


Bird/Bron


It really is that simple……