Where do you think Kobe ranks in the all-time list?

[Lightning28]

Where do you think Kobe ranks in the all-time list? And specifically too, like 10, 9, 12, etc.

[Real Deal]

Top 10 is the easy answer.

 

I'm one to remove all of the personal accolades (because I can't stand the MVP award, seeing how Kobe and Shaq have a combined TWO, while Nash has two alone), and when it comes to a player's overall skillset and abilities/domination, Kobe is top three.

 

I'm assuming it's best to say that Jordan is #1, followed by Wilt. After that, everyone in that top ten falls into place. I just have a hard time saying that Wilt would've done all of what he did in today's game (or in the 90's), because despite the "popular opinion" of many who, like me, didn't watch him live...most of the bigs that defended him were the size of today's PF's and SF's, and that really does take away from what he did.

 

Would Wilt Chamberlain really average 50 PPG today? Not a chance. I doubt he would hit 40, but given that he still did, no matter the era, I'm almost obligated to dismiss the circumstances and stick him above most everyone else.

 

A few years ago, I would consider Magic over Kobe, but after Bryant matched his championship total, I consider Kobe the greatest Laker of all-time. He is more skilled than Magic, played better defense, and while he didn't throw 14 APG (Kobe did have Shaq, but he didn't have Showtime), Bryant did facilitate an offense AND average 30+ a night, something Magic may not have been able to do over an 82-game season (we'll never know).

[DunkinDerozan]

I haven't been watching basketball long enough to know the guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Jabbar, etc, so I can't give a very good opinion. I'll say i'd for sure rank him in the higher half of the top-10. Probably 7-10 or so.

[Nitro]

I'd definitely take Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Shaq and Kareem over Kobe without hesitation.

 

I used to think Wilt was an easy pick over Kobe due to his stats and apparant dominance, but I saw some interesting analysis on Wilt over at RealGM that made me question his true impact. He put up huge stats, but it wasn't always to the benefit of his offense, and often times his teams under-performed. Still, I'd probably take him over Kobe.

 

Duncan and Hakeem are right with Kobe. At their peaks, I think both were better and more impactful than Kobe. However, neither of their peaks lasted long enough to put over Kobe, who has had one of the most remarkable longevity in league history. And throwing in Kobe's advantage in championships and some other individual accolades, Kobe may have the edge. Hakeem's peak was absolutely unbelievable and insanely dominant, though, so I may take Hakeem by a very slight hair at this moment, and give Kobe the edge over Duncan.

 

So, I'd say 9th. Could be as high as 7th, and no lower than 10th.

[AboveLegit]

I've stated many times how overrated Wilt is. It's one thing if you're winning the way Russell did in an inferior era, but it's a completely different thing when you're dominant statistically, but can't win in that specific era. The same goes to Oscar Robertson who's only title came when he was playing with a top 3 player of all time..

 

Think about it, the fact that Kareem won as many titles as Wilt by the time he retired in '73 is enough to prove that Wilt was obsessed with padding his stats and records rather than getting rings. By the time Wilt retired, Kareem already had half as many titles and MVPs. In comparison to Russell, Wilt's winning makes up only a small percentage of Bill's success, despite Bill retiring 4 years earlier. It was always something with Wilt.. Wilt played on better teams than Kareem until of course Magic came to LA. Even Kareem's '71 team isn't better than a lot of teams Wilt was on. He's one of the biggest underachievers ever in the history of sports.

 

Anyways, here's my list..

 

1. Jordan

2. Russell

3. Kareem

4. Magic

5. Bird

6. Shaq

7. Kobe

8. Duncan

9. Hakeem

10. Wilt

[Nitro]

It's one thing if you're winning the way Russell did in an inferior era, but it's a completely different thing when you're dominant statistically, but can't win in that specific era.

 

To be fair, Wilt's era may have been inferior, but the reason he didn't win more championships was because Russell's Celtics had more HoF'rs on it than any team in NBA history, from the players to the coach.

 

But I agree with most everything you said, otherwise, and we pretty much agree on the top 10.

[AboveLegit]

To be fair, Wilt's era may have been inferior, but the reason he didn't win more championships was because Russell's Celtics had more HoF'rs on it than any team in NBA history, from the players to the coach.

 

But I agree with most everything you said, otherwise, and we pretty much agree on the top 10.

But he also choked in game 7 against the Knicks in 1970 without a healthy Willis Reed. He lost in 1973 against the Knicks again, but I'll give him a pass there because he was breaking down.

[Lightning28]

 

 

Duncan and Hakeem are right with Kobe. At their peaks, I think both were better and more impactful than Kobe. However, neither of their peaks lasted long enough to put over Kobe, who has had one of the most remarkable longevity in league history. And throwing in Kobe's advantage in championships and some other individual accolades, Kobe may have the edge. Hakeem's peak was absolutely unbelievable and insanely dominant, though, so I may take Hakeem by a very slight hair at this moment, and give Kobe the edge over Duncan.

Could you elaborate on this, specifically the bold? Duncan is known for supposedly having a dominant longevity. His prime was supposedly from his rookie season to like 2007. I know a lot of people claim that Duncan entered the league in his prime because he played 4 years in College and was extremely polished. I do think Duncan's '03 season is overrated though. I've heard some people say it was better than Hakeem's '94 season.

 

Duncan's accolades and accomplishments are just as good, if not better than Kobe's too. Again I just want to know your answer, I don't even necessarily disagree. You can say I'm pretty much playing devils advocate.

[Lightning28]

To be fair, Wilt's era may have been inferior, but the reason he didn't win more championships was because Russell's Celtics had more HoF'rs on it than any team in NBA history, from the players to the coach.

 

But I agree with most everything you said, otherwise, and we pretty much agree on the top 10.

The HOFers Wilt and Russell played with are actually pretty close. It's not as big of a margin as most people make it as.

[Lightning28]

I've stated many times how overrated Wilt is. It's one thing if you're winning the way Russell did in an inferior era, but it's a completely different thing when you're dominant statistically, but can't win in that specific era. The same goes to Oscar Robertson who's only title came when he was playing with a top 3 player of all time..

 

Think about it, the fact that Kareem won as many titles as Wilt by the time he retired in '73 is enough to prove that Wilt was obsessed with padding his stats and records rather than getting rings. By the time Wilt retired, Kareem already had half as many titles and MVPs. In comparison to Russell, Wilt's winning makes up only a small percentage of Bill's success, despite Bill retiring 4 years earlier. It was always something with Wilt.. Wilt played on better teams than Kareem until of course Magic came to LA. Even Kareem's '71 team isn't better than a lot of teams Wilt was on. He's one of the biggest underachievers ever in the history of sports.

 

Anyways, here's my list..

 

1. Jordan

2. Russell

3. Kareem

4. Magic

5. Bird

6. Shaq

7. Kobe

8. Duncan

9. Hakeem

10. Wilt

Could you explain why Kobe is above Duncan and Dream? I just want some clarification.

[Nitro]

Could you elaborate on this, specifically the bold? Duncan is known for supposedly having a dominant longevity. His prime was supposedly from his rookie season to like 2007. I know a lot of people claim that Duncan entered the league in his prime because he played 4 years in College and was extremely polished. I do think Duncan's '03 season is overrated though. I've heard some people say it was better than Hakeem's '94 season.

 

Duncan's accolades and accomplishments are just as good, if not better than Kobe's too. Again I just want to know your answer, I don't even necessarily disagree. You can say I'm pretty much playing devils advocate.

 

Duncan did have amazing longevity, but not quite the same as Kobe's. I felt Duncan was around a top 3 player from 98-07, while Kobe has been from 00-present, and currently he is having one of the best individual seasons of his career and doesn't look to be slowing down much. Kobe has had a longer string of All-NBA 1st team selections and All-NBA Defensive selections. Kobe is about to be play in his 14th ASG, where as Duncan's streak ends this year (and Kobe will have 2 more All-Star starts). Kobe has stayed playing 35-40MPG for the last 14 seasons while Pop has needed to cut Duncan's minutes by around 10 minutes from when he was at his peak. All of Duncan's top 3 finishes in MVP voting came from 98-04, while Kobe's came from 02-10 and he is likely to finish top 3 this season.

 

As I said, Duncan's longevity has been amazing, but Kobe's has been even better.

 

As for accolades and accomplishments, right now they are nearly dead-even. Duncan has one more MVP and Finals MVP, while Kobe has one more championships and a few more All-NBA and All-Star selections, and 2 more scoring titles. The difference right now is that Kobe's accolades and accomplishments keep growing, with another scoring title and All-NBA 1st team selection likely to be added this season, while Duncan's pretty much done with the individual accomplishments.

 

At their peaks, I felt Duncan was the slightly better player. He was an incredible post player who could give you 25PPG, was an unbelievable defender, great passer out of the post, and sensational rebounder. He simply impacted the game on a greater scale than Kobe. However, I feel his peak as that dominant #1 guy lasted less than Kobe's. For a decade now Kobe has been one of the very few players who can truly carry a team on his back by giving you 30PPG on solid efficiency (his TS% is almost always better than Duncan's, FWIW), can be the primary ballhandler and facilitate the offense while giving you 5-6APG, is one of the best rebounders at his position, can play lockdown defense when focused, and the one thing he could do that Duncan always needed guys like Ginobili for is he can be a guy you can give him the ball anywhere on the floor in clutch situations and have him consistently make a play. He also has been a tremendous leader, incredibly consistent, and gives you 40MPG if you need it (definitely a knock on Duncan when comparing him to Kobe).

 

Overall, I just feel Kobe's longevity, both in the scope of his career and his peak, was more impressive than Duncan's, and they were close enough at their peaks to where that is the deal-breaker for me.

[Lightning28]

Duncan did have amazing longevity, but not quite the same as Kobe's. I felt Duncan was around a top 3 player from 98-07, while Kobe has been from 00-present, and currently he is having one of the best individual seasons of his career and doesn't look to be slowing down much.

I'm not sure if Kobe was top 3 in '04-'05 since he was pretty much injured and his team missed the post-season. He was top 3 at the very least in all the other seasons and was the best player in the league too.

 

I think Kobe was the best player in the league in '05-'06, '06-'07, '07-'08, and '08-'09.

 

I think Duncan was the best in the league in '98-'99, '02-'03, and '04-'05.

 

I think Kobe wins although a lot of people say LeBron was the best in '08-'09, I don't agree with it though.

 

Kobe has had a longer string of All-NBA 1st team selections and All-NBA Defensive selections. Kobe is about to be play in his 14th ASG, where as Duncan's streak ends this year (and Kobe will have 2 more All-Star starts). Kobe has stayed playing 35-40MPG for the last 14 seasons while Pop has needed to cut Duncan's minutes by around 10 minutes from when he was at his peak. All of Duncan's top 3 finishes in MVP voting came from 98-04, while Kobe's came from 02-10 and he is likely to finish top 3 this season.

 

As for accolades and accomplishments, right now they are nearly dead-even. Duncan has one more MVP and Finals MVP, while Kobe has one more championships and a few more All-NBA and All-Star selections, and 2 more scoring titles. The difference right now is that Kobe's accolades and accomplishments keep growing, with another scoring title and All-NBA 1st team selection likely to be added this season, while Duncan's pretty much done with the individual accomplishments.

 

I personally do not think All-NBA teams and All-NBA Defensive teams mean much mainly because it is just the opinion of other people. I prefer thinking myself and not relying on others to do it for me.

 

A lot of people felt like Kobe wasn't deserving of All-NBA First team over Wade last season anyways. He sure as hell did not deserve the past two All-NBA Defensive first teams in the past two seasons either. You can argue a few seasons where Duncan didn't belong in the defensive team either though.

 

Kobe didn't get any MVP votes in '04-'05 too.

 

At their peaks, I felt Duncan was the slightly better player. He was an incredible post player who could give you 25PPG, was an unbelievable defender, great passer out of the post, and sensational rebounder. He simply impacted the game on a greater scale than Kobe. However, I feel his peak as that dominant #1 guy lasted less than Kobe's. For a decade now Kobe has been one of the very few players who can truly carry a team on his back by giving you 30PPG on solid efficiency (his TS% is almost always better than Duncan's, FWIW), can be the primary ballhandler and facilitate the offense while giving you 5-6APG, is one of the best rebounders at his position, can play lockdown defense when focused, and the one thing he could do that Duncan always needed guys like Ginobili for is he can be a guy you can give him the ball anywhere on the floor in clutch situations and have him consistently make a play. He also has been a tremendous leader, incredibly consistent, and gives you 40MPG if you need it (definitely a knock on Duncan when comparing him to Kobe).

 

Do you think intangibles such as leadership, team play, etc. mean much? I'm assuming not and that is why Shaq is above Duncan anyways and Shaq was a horrible teammate. I understand your point though and it was an excellent point although many people argue statistically that Kobe was always overrated in the clutch.

 

Overall, I just feel Kobe's longevity, both in the scope of his career and his peak, was more impressive than Duncan's, and they were close enough at their peaks to where that is the deal-breaker for me.

Good post but I just wanted to address a few things, I hope you read it and address them.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Lightning28

[Lightning28]

btw I think the Kobe-Bird comparison is actually really close, might even favor Kobe.

[Art]

Interesting Picture:

• http://i39.tinypic.com/1zfj140.jpg

[Nitro]

btw I think the Kobe-Bird comparison is actually really close, might even favor Kobe.

 

IMO no. Bird was decisively more dominant at his peak IMO.

[Lightning28]

IMO no. Bird was decisively more dominant at his peak IMO.

Why did you ignore my post on Kobe-Duncan though? thought you would respond.

[Nitro]

Why did you ignore my post on Kobe-Duncan though? thought you would respond.

 

It didn't really warrant a response, I said my peace and everything you responded with was small nit-picking (Kobe not being top 3 in 04-05 due to injuries, All-NBA teams and whatnot not holding much weight...I used both points purely to show longevity, that's it). If you were in blatant disagreement with anything I said, I'd have a rebuttal, but that wasn't the case.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Nitro

[Finch23]

Duncan did have amazing longevity, but not quite the same as Kobe's. I felt Duncan was around a top 3 player from 98-07, while Kobe has been from 00-present, and currently he is having one of the best individual seasons of his career and doesn't look to be slowing down much. Kobe has had a longer string of All-NBA 1st team selections and All-NBA Defensive selections. Kobe is about to be play in his 14th ASG, where as Duncan's streak ends this year (and Kobe will have 2 more All-Star starts). Kobe has stayed playing 35-40MPG for the last 14 seasons while Pop has needed to cut Duncan's minutes by around 10 minutes from when he was at his peak. All of Duncan's top 3 finishes in MVP voting came from 98-04, while Kobe's came from 02-10 and he is likely to finish top 3 this season.

 

As I said, Duncan's longevity has been amazing, but Kobe's has been even better.

 

As for accolades and accomplishments, right now they are nearly dead-even. Duncan has one more MVP and Finals MVP, while Kobe has one more championships and a few more All-NBA and All-Star selections, and 2 more scoring titles. The difference right now is that Kobe's accolades and accomplishments keep growing, with another scoring title and All-NBA 1st team selection likely to be added this season, while Duncan's pretty much done with the individual accomplishments.

 

At their peaks, I felt Duncan was the slightly better player. He was an incredible post player who could give you 25PPG, was an unbelievable defender, great passer out of the post, and sensational rebounder. He simply impacted the game on a greater scale than Kobe. However, I feel his peak as that dominant #1 guy lasted less than Kobe's. For a decade now Kobe has been one of the very few players who can truly carry a team on his back by giving you 30PPG on solid efficiency (his TS% is almost always better than Duncan's, FWIW), can be the primary ballhandler and facilitate the offense while giving you 5-6APG, is one of the best rebounders at his position, can play lockdown defense when focused, and the one thing he could do that Duncan always needed guys like Ginobili for is he can be a guy you can give him the ball anywhere on the floor in clutch situations and have him consistently make a play. He also has been a tremendous leader, incredibly consistent, and gives you 40MPG if you need it (definitely a knock on Duncan when comparing him to Kobe).

 

Overall, I just feel Kobe's longevity, both in the scope of his career and his peak, was more impressive than Duncan's, and they were close enough at their peaks to where that is the deal-breaker for me.

 

"Kobe has had a longer string of All-NBA 1st team selections and All-NBA Defensive selections."

 

Actually they are tied.

 

Duncan

All NBA first team (9X)

All NBA 2nd team (3X)

All Nba 3rd team (1X)

 

Kobe

All NBA first team (9X)

All NBA 2nd team (2X)

All NBa 3rd team (2X)

 

Duncan

All defensive first team (8X)

All defensive 2nd team (5X)

 

Kobe

All defensive first team (9X)

All defensive 2nd team (2X)

 

Kobe sat behind Eddie Jones for his first two years and then played with the most dominant big man ever and won three rings as the 2nd option. After Shaq left Kobe failed to make the playoffs, and when they did make it he have up on his team against the Suns in that series (game 7?). Then he bitched and complained that he wanted to be traded, threw his team mates under the bus and poof..... Gasol. The 4th championship of Bryants was largely due to Gasol, and IMO he was the MVP of that team.

 

Winning 5 championships is a fantastic accomplishment and no doubt Kobe is top ten and will probably finish higher than that, but Tim Duncan won 4 championships as the primary option on both sides of the floor, with the Spurs not having big money like LA to spend and attract FA's.

 

I'm biased, but to me Duncan should be higher than Kobe (for now).