Top 15 basically means being on the 3rd starting five of all time, at worst.
Who's the starting SG on the second team then? Jerry West? Wade?
Wade, no. Not on the overall rankings list. I can only see categories like shot selection, passing, and perhaps how well they perform in the biggest games.
West is in the conversation. Depending on how people want to tweak the classification or roster makeup (some might like 5 centers or 5 forwards on their top 5 team), Oscar might be on someone's first or second team. Magic/Michael on team 1, Oscar/Jerry on team 2. Clearly some have Michael/Kobe team 1, maybe Oscar/Magic team 2. Lots of combinations. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
If this is how it's ending for Kobe this year, I have to say he's fallen a bit in the GOAT standings than risen. Unfortunate, but big part of that was the lackluster success he has had without Phil Jackson, then the injuries and then Lakers re-building at a time where he needed the most support he ever did in his career.
I really, really wish Kobe had gone out better than this, a 6th ring and 3rd MVP Finals wise would have put him undisputed top 5, IMO. Now? I really think other than a Laker board, he is unlikely to be top 5 in most people's rankings. He's definitely a top 10 all time player for most people who are not Laker fans but understand the game and recognize how truly special he was.
It is what it is, but this wasn't how I wanted it to go for KB. If it were just 1 year ok, but the last 3-4 years ... UGH. What I'd give to have seen him get 1 more crack in the playoffs in any of these last few years. Been frustrating to see it unfold.
I think one thing that hurts Kobes rating with a lot of people is the lack of MVPs and scoring titles when compared to some of the others. In his 20 seasons, he was in serious running for the scoring title and MVP in like 15 of them but only got the scoring title twice and MVP once. On the flip side, he's helped by the fact that he was on great teams in like 15 of those 20 years as well and it helped him win more championships.
I think one thing that hurts Kobes rating with a lot of people is the lack of MVPs and scoring titles when compared to some of the others. In his 20 seasons, he was in serious running for the scoring title and MVP in like 15 of them but only got the scoring title twice and MVP once. On the flip side, he's helped by the fact that he was on great teams in like 15 of those 20 years as well and it helped him win more championships.
No one should hold these last 3 seasons against him. No more than people hold the final two years of Hakeem or Kareem. If they do, I guess it's because if you are going to take the good (i.e. stats), then it's fair game to point out the bad. Kareem needed the points in '88 and '89 to keep his all-time scoring throne, but his overall level had clearly declined.
Many people don't like Kobe's volume shooting and his stubbornness with ball distribution. He never really developed the 3-point shot, yet he liked to take them. Why not work for better shots? People see high counting totals, particularly in scoring, yet it's a bit light in the quality area. Where was his 49% shooting year, with 8 boards, 8 assists? There weren't a few seasons where he was 40% beyond the arc. It's true that these are some tough standards, and so many other players aren't held to those. But those other players aren't regarded as "goat" candidates, either.
His performances in NBA Finals aren't necessarily terrible, but they don't exactly jump out and feel unworldly, either. I think Kobe is most similar to Hondo, historically. First part of career more in a "sidekick" role, then later teaming up with Gasol/Cowens in the primary role. Won lots of rings along the way, of course.
Kobe's certainly the most successful player ever to make the jump to the pros directly from high school. Lebron, Moses, and KG come next. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
If this is how it's ending for Kobe this year, I have to say he's fallen a bit in the GOAT standings than risen. Unfortunate, but big part of that was the lackluster success he has had without Phil Jackson, then the injuries and then Lakers re-building at a time where he needed the most support he ever did in his career.
I really, really wish Kobe had gone out better than this, a 6th ring and 3rd MVP Finals wise would have put him undisputed top 5, IMO. Now? I really think other than a Laker board, he is unlikely to be top 5 in most people's rankings. He's definitely a top 10 all time player for most people who are not Laker fans but understand the game and recognize how truly special he was.
It is what it is, but this wasn't how I wanted it to go for KB. If it were just 1 year ok, but the last 3-4 years ... UGH. What I'd give to have seen him get 1 more crack in the playoffs in any of these last few years. Been frustrating to see it unfold.
Even Bill Simmons, the biggest Kobe detractor/hater on the planet said these last few years shouldn't have any effect on his legacy. So what's that say about your opinion...?
I think one thing that hurts Kobes rating with a lot of people is the lack of MVPs and scoring titles when compared to some of the others. In his 20 seasons, he was in serious running for the scoring title and MVP in like 15 of them but only got the scoring title twice and MVP once. On the flip side, he's helped by the fact that he was on great teams in like 15 of those 20 years as well and it helped him win more championships.
No one should hold these last 3 seasons against him. No more than people hold the final two years of Hakeem or Kareem. If they do, I guess it's because if you are going to take the good (i.e. stats), then it's fair game to point out the bad. Kareem needed the points in '88 and '89 to keep his all-time scoring throne, but his overall level had clearly declined.
Many people don't like Kobe's volume shooting and his stubbornness with ball distribution. He never really developed the 3-point shot, yet he liked to take them. Why not work for better shots? People see high counting totals, particularly in scoring, yet it's a bit light in the quality area. Where was his 49% shooting year, with 8 boards, 8 assists? There weren't a few seasons where he was 40% beyond the arc. It's true that these are some tough standards, and so many other players aren't held to those. But those other players aren't regarded as "goat" candidates, either.
His performances in NBA Finals aren't necessarily terrible, but they don't exactly jump out and feel unworldly, either. I think Kobe is most similar to Hondo, historically. First part of career more in a "sidekick" role, then later teaming up with Gasol/Cowens in the primary role. Won lots of rings along the way, of course.
Kobe's certainly the most successful player ever to make the jump to the pros directly from high school. Lebron, Moses, and KG come next.
I think the last 3 seasons shouldn't hurt his overall legacy, but he did not gain ground on the GOAT or top 5 arguments. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
If this is how it's ending for Kobe this year, I have to say he's fallen a bit in the GOAT standings than risen. Unfortunate, but big part of that was the lackluster success he has had without Phil Jackson, then the injuries and then Lakers re-building at a time where he needed the most support he ever did in his career.
I really, really wish Kobe had gone out better than this, a 6th ring and 3rd MVP Finals wise would have put him undisputed top 5, IMO. Now? I really think other than a Laker board, he is unlikely to be top 5 in most people's rankings. He's definitely a top 10 all time player for most people who are not Laker fans but understand the game and recognize how truly special he was.
It is what it is, but this wasn't how I wanted it to go for KB. If it were just 1 year ok, but the last 3-4 years ... UGH. What I'd give to have seen him get 1 more crack in the playoffs in any of these last few years. Been frustrating to see it unfold.
Even Bill Simmons, the biggest Kobe detractor/hater on the planet said these last few years shouldn't have any effect on his legacy. So what's that say about your opinion...?
Again, Simmons is saying that in regards to overall legacy. I bet you he'd say the last 3 years were important for Kobe to climb up the GOAT and top 5 ladders, which he didn't.
Still top 10 in my book. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Bird (2 less rings, same amount of FMVPs, not an elite defender)
Magic (same amount of rings but took more Finals to get them, not an elite defender, never won without Kareem)
and Wilt (won "only" 2 rings while supposedly being the MDE and his counterpart in Russell racked up rings)
ABOVE Kobe.
Because rings are a team achievement that, while relevant, do not override all of the other considerations. Kobe had a lot of negatives that you don't want to acknowledge. In fact, your comments touch on one of the many paradoxes surrounding Kobe: you want to focus on his team accomplishments even though one of the major raps against him is that he was a lousy team player.
If you want to rate him over those guys, that's cool. This is all subjective. In the broad consensus, though, Kobe isn't there. I expect that we'll see some people in the media rating him highly as his career winds down to a close over the next four months, but Kobe is destined to sink in the ratings because (a) memories fade, but stats last forever, and (b) the sabermetrics guys will have a field day with Kobe's stats.
Bird (2 less rings, same amount of FMVPs, not an elite defender)
Magic (same amount of rings but took more Finals to get them, not an elite defender, never won without Kareem)
and Wilt (won "only" 2 rings while supposedly being the MDE and his counterpart in Russell racked up rings)
ABOVE Kobe.
Those same guys rank a lot of players above Robert Horry ...
I'm not a big fan of Bird, I don't hate anyone, but I really don't like him, Paxon or any Celtic from 80's, but man, he was a hell of a competitor. Never took a bad shot to prove he was better than a teammate, never overpassed trying to prove he should take most shots. He gave it all every night, including the dirty work. I think Kobe was the better player, but I can live with someone ranking Bird over him.
Wilt didn't have enough firepower around him to win it all, he was Kobe plus 4 Smushies.
Magic never won without Kareen, Jordan never won without Pipen, Kareen never won without Magic or Big O, Wilt never won without West, West never won without Wilt and Kobe never won with Slava, Kwame and Smush or without Phil.
Kobe was great, who cares if he is 4th, 7th or 12th? Just enjoy 5 titles and an amazing career.
Bird (2 less rings, same amount of FMVPs, not an elite defender)
Magic (same amount of rings but took more Finals to get them, not an elite defender, never won without Kareem)
and Wilt (won "only" 2 rings while supposedly being the MDE and his counterpart in Russell racked up rings)
ABOVE Kobe.
Because rings are a team achievement that, while relevant, do not override all of the other considerations. Kobe had a lot of negatives that you don't want to acknowledge. In fact, your comments touch on one of the many paradoxes surrounding Kobe: you want to focus on his team accomplishments even though one of the major raps against him is that he was a lousy team player.
If you want to rate him over those guys, that's cool. This is all subjective. In the broad consensus, though, Kobe isn't there. I expect that we'll see some people in the media rating him highly as his career winds down to a close over the next four months, but Kobe is destined to sink in the ratings because (a) memories fade, but stats last forever, and (b) the sabermetrics guys will have a field day with Kobe's stats.
Not to mention, it's the old (and odd IMO) adage that getting to the finals more often is worse than getting to the finals less when the number of rings is the same.
Somehow, we got to a point where it is better for a player's legacy to have been a lottery team than get to the finals and lose.
Joined: 02 Jun 2009 Posts: 2415 Location: Far from home
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:28 am Post subject:
C'mon you guys, the article is click-bait, nothing more. On the basis of the L.A. market reaction and the timeliness of Kobe's announcement, they're casting a big net for you mindless baitfish. Ignore it, the article, its broadcast, its topic. _________________ “These GOAT discussions are fun distractions while sitting around waiting for the pizza to be served.”
I think history will be kinder to Kobe once he's out of the game for a few years.
Some of the reactions seem so visceral and a commentary of the Kobe of the past 3 years while wholly ignoring the vast body of his great play. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
who are the 14 players they rank ahead of Kobe??? I can't see their bs list.
That was Pelton. He cites to his statistical analysis, which is based mostly on box score stats, but also some of the more advanced measures. He says that stats would put Kobe at about 20th at best, but he gives Kobe a boost because of playoff success. This is a paraphrase, not Pelton's exact words.
I don't find a pure statistical argument to be any more persuasive than a pure rings-based argument or a pure "he was just better!" argument. If you really buy the statistical argument, then Kobe wasn't really a great player at all. But he was. Everybody knows that, including the stat guys.
Fundamentally, the problem comes down to this:
1. The stat guys are looking for efficiency and the like, as they should. Kobe was not efficient by the standards of the other great players. For that matter, his defensive reputation does not hold up to scrutiny, which comes as no surprise to most of us on this board. Based on stats, Kobe wouldn't rank 20th, much less 15th.
2. Kobe's greatness was sheer, overwhelming volume scoring. Efficiency be damned, Kobe could just go off on you. He was all but impossible to defend in clutch situations, and you pretty much had to just hope he missed. These are legendary attributes, but they are not captured by stats.
who are the 14 players they rank ahead of Kobe??? I can't see their bs list.
That was Pelton. He cites to his statistical analysis, which is based mostly on box score stats, but also some of the more advanced measures. He says that stats would put Kobe at about 20th at best, but he gives Kobe a boost because of playoff success. This is a paraphrase, not Pelton's exact words.
I don't find a pure statistical argument to be any more persuasive than a pure rings-based argument or a pure "he was just better!" argument. If you really buy the statistical argument, then Kobe wasn't really a great player at all. But he was. Everybody knows that, including the stat guys.
Fundamentally, the problem comes down to this:
1. The stat guys are looking for efficiency and the like, as they should. Kobe was not efficient by the standards of the other great players. For that matter, his defensive reputation does not hold up to scrutiny, which comes as no surprise to most of us on this board. Based on stats, Kobe wouldn't rank 20th, much less 15th.
2. Kobe's greatness was sheer, overwhelming volume scoring. Efficiency be damned, Kobe could just go off on you. He was all but impossible to defend in clutch situations, and you pretty much had to just hope he missed. These are legendary attributes, but they are not captured by stats.
that's my thing - if stats can't capture kobe's greatness then we just need better stats. stats that can somehow capture the psychological effect going against kobe has. some data that i would propose looking at are things like the relative difference in a metric i'd call "on court intensity" based on the context of the game. for example, metta has remarked previously on how when he locked up some of the better players in the league, they'd just quit and stop wanting the ball, but kobe kept going. these are real things that players have insight into, but i have never seen any statistical analysis of it. after a few possessions of being defended by an elite defender, does a player start playing at a slower pace, get less touches, make less off ball movement, pass up shots they would normally take? in could do a measure of the same things in "clutch situations".
it's a classic human thing - where we look at statistics to help us understand how to win, and then inflate the thing we're using to learn how to win over winning itself.
The only argument that makes sense to me is discussing contemporaries during certain eras of the NBA.
Sure, that's a lot easier, but it's also a lot less fun. And people forget, that ranking the top 10 or whatever is nothing more than a fun exercise. I like to listen to people make a case for why Wilt is better than Mikan or Kareem or Hakeem and vice versa. I don't care if there isn't a scientifically provable "correct' answer.
And if the debate is not fun or it's frustrating for you, the solution is simple - don't take part in it.
My five: Russell, Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Duncan. Jordan gets the next spot, then it gets tough. Hakeem, Shaq, Wilt, Oscar, Kobe, West, Moses, Mailman, Stockton, etc. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
The only argument that makes sense to me is discussing contemporaries during certain eras of the NBA.
Sure, that's a lot easier, but it's also a lot less fun. And people forget, that ranking the top 10 or whatever is nothing more than a fun exercise. I like to listen to people make a case for why Wilt is better than Mikan or Kareem or Hakeem and vice versa. I don't care if there isn't a scientifically provable "correct' answer.
And if the debate is not fun or it's frustrating for you, the solution is simple - don't take part in it.
Right, it's all in good fun. Some take it far too seriously. I can understand the support some have for Hakeem over Wilt. Not just the skill level, but h2h his teams beat Mail, Robinson, Chuck, Ewing and Shaq. Even beat Showtime. That's quite a peak. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
Bird (2 less rings, same amount of FMVPs, not an elite defender)
Magic (same amount of rings but took more Finals to get them, not an elite defender, never won without Kareem)
and Wilt (won "only" 2 rings while supposedly being the MDE and his counterpart in Russell racked up rings)
ABOVE Kobe.
Well, all you're doing is selectively picking a few criteria that gives Kobe an advantage. For all three of those guys, if you were arguing in favor of them, you could name lots of great accomplishments that Kobe didn't have as well.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
