Kobe v. LBJ (Read mod warning on page 1 before posting)

[miggz23]

[LaLaLakeShow]

[miggz23]

[LaLaLakeShow]

[L4L]

Who is “better at basketball” and who is the greatest are clearly two different things, but people seem to not be able to separate them entirely.

George Mikan is never on these lists. And for what reason? If we’re being honest, it is because most people never saw him and, even more poignantly, people don’t believe a 6’10” white guy would be that dominant in any other era. Bill Russell has how many rings as the man??? By my count, at least 8 and you could argue for more. He and Wilt both get penalized by a recency bias.

I’ll be honest: you’ll never convince me that the quality of the athletes in the 50s was remotely as high as the 60s and the athletes in the 60s, for the most part, couldn’t hold a candle to the athletes of the 80s and beyond. Jordan was a big, strong guard in the 90s. A 6’5”/6’6” SG is nothing special in today’s game. That’s arguably on the smaller side for a wing. A guy that size is often a defensive liability now.

You have to make a decision about eras at some point on these types of things. What are we really ranking? “Greatness” and skill set aren’t the same thing. Greatness and overall ability to contribute to winning aren’t the same thing, either.

If we are speaking strictly historically, this is pretty unarguable, IMO:

50s: Mikan
60s: Wilt or Russell
70s: Kareem
80s: Magic or Bird
90s: Jordan (Hakeem isn’t close, IMO)
00s: Bryant, Shaq, or Duncan
10s: LeBron

On most “rankings” lists, which tend to be greatness lists, because that’s far easier to quantify, you end up with LeBron, Jordan, and Kareem around the top because their dominance in their respective era is relatively unchallenged or irreproachable. Wilt/Russel and Magic/Bird tend to come next and the order tends to be dependent on who the individual thinks was the best player from their era. Then, for the most part, you get Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan distributed at the end of the Top 10 (Hakeem gets elevated into this echelon as well despite being the only Top 11 guy without a clear claim to being the best of his era).

The 00s ends up being the only era with three guys who have a legitimate claim to the best player of their era. They all cannibalized the rings and accolades in that era and, ironically, in my opinion, prevented any of the three from being universally considered a true GOAT candidate.

However, there’s another way to look at it: the 00s was simply the most competitive era in basketball history as far as the title of “best in the game is concerned”. And you’ll simply never convince me that prime Shaq or prime Kobe don’t annihilate many of the previous eras based on size, athleticism, and the advancing skill sets of their era.

You’ll also never convince me that Kobe wouldn’t have completely different stats in the money ball era. He’s a better raw athlete than Harden and he’s arguably the greatest one-on-one player of all-time. With a heavier emphasis on the three in his preparation throughout his career, he would have easily put up Hardenesque stats in a 5 out offense. I flat out think he’d put up better stats, personally.

So, if we are talking best basketball player, and not “greatness” list (I’m willing to concede LeBron has a better all-time resume ), I need more than stats. The “efficiency” numbers don’t mean a damn thing when they were amassed during completely different historical environments.

I need more than a bunch of stats to concede LeBron is the better basketball player. But let’s be real... the meat of the argument for LeBron against the other GOAT candidates come down to stats. Whatever. That’s just not enough for those of us who SAW Bird, Magic, Jordan, etc. The stats don’t tell the whole story. They just don’t.

Consensus in and of itself doesn’t mean much other. There was a time when most people were okay with slavery and where a man couldn’t legally rape his wife. The status quo and consensus aren’t always right.

It’s crazy how little actual basketball gets discussed when these topics come up. No one is talking about how each player dealt with zones, who could create better with a pick or who was better one on one, etc. The whole discussion is just stats. It’s just my personal bias but I just think it sucks we don’t talk more actual hoops when this stuff comes up.

[LaLaLakeShow]

[moonriver24]

Because of the late Dr. Buss and the love of Lakers, Kobe opted not to chase the ring with other teams when he could do so as a free agent. Case in point is when he could have produced more rings with Clippers in 2004. As we all know, Lakers milked Kobe's peak seasons with no rings until he threatened to leave Lakers. That was when we got lucky to land on Gasol. The 2000s kobe is sure unforgettable.
_________________
Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples

[moonriver24]

[CabinCreek44]

[activeverb]

^^^^^
There may not be a topic that people disagree about more than which decade of NBA play was the best, the most fun, the most competitive etc.

In a lot of lists, I see the 2000s ranked fourth behind the 80s, the 90s, and the 2010s.

About the only thing people agree is the 60s and 70s are the worse.

The opinions on this are highly colored by what style of basketball the ranker enjoys and when they started watching the NBA and if they were a fan of a player from a particular era.

[LandsbergerRules]

Some really good points, L4L. But I do disagree with 6'6" SGs like MJ and Kobe being on the smaller side these days. Alot of SGs that size or smaller have thrived this decade, and they don't have nearly the skill level MJ and Kobe had.
_________________
"Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him

[Aeneas Hunter]

[governator]

[activeverb]

[Dr. Laker]

[LandsbergerRules]

[activeverb]

[venturalakersfan]

[activeverb]

[LandsbergerRules]

[Aeneas Hunter]

[activeverb]

[LandsbergerRules]

[AirTupac]

[activeverb]