Kobe joins the 30,000 point club: so where does he rank all-time now?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Ultimately it's impossible to answer this question as there are far too many variables and nobody can agree how to weigh each of them. But it's fascinating to observe how small differences could completely shift opinion. If Jordan is called for the offensive foul in the 1998 finals, maybe the Jazz win that series. Suddenly Malone's career is viewed infinitely more favorably. All from changing 5 quarters of basketball over a 15+ year career, we completely change how effective of a player we think Malone is.

There is no way that winning those 2 games makes Malone 20% better at basketball, but winning them would have convinced everyone he was better by an even greater factor than 20%.

the point about those two games is that Malone froze up in winning time.

[stevemcqueen1]

the hate im seeing of Kobe's greatness is mindboggling and sad.

If you were given the chance to draft a rookie Kobe. Malone, Barkley, KG, Dirk, Hakeem, and Robinson, you would take Kobe over all of them?

Dirk and KG are legit arguments too. Both of them led teams to championships and Dirk did it wholly by himself, running through Kobe's #1 seed Lakers in a 4 game sweep and putting his throat on the end of that Lakers Dynasty. Plus beating LeBron and Wade.

When KG and Dirk didn't have any surrounding talent, they still got their teams to win and Dirk never missed the playoffs after his second year. Kobe was in his prime and he missed the playoffs. Those Flip Saunders Minny teams were awful, as bad or worse as anything Kobe has had in his career and KG still managed to singlehandedly win. And his 2003-2004 is one of the greatest seasons in NBA history, the best a PF has ever had. Much better than Kobe's best year.

KG and Dirk earned their MVPs. Kobe's was given to him for lifetime achievement in a year when CP3 should have gotten it and LeBron had a better case too. Dirk and KG each led the league at least twice in PER and WS and WS/48 while Kobe never has. There have been points in their careers where you could absolutely say they were the best player in the league while that has never happened for Kobe.

Until they got old, KG and Dirk were a better cornerstone to get an automatic trip to the playoffs than Kobe was.

What else do you need? Kobe will pass them now that they're old and tailing off and he's still going strong, but for most of each of their careers, those guys were more valuable than Kobe.

[JMS]

Kobe is a better all around player than Elgin was and he's played at a top level for a much longer period than Elgin did..

Kobe was drafted out of highschool, if longevity of your career is your metric then few would compare with Kobe, but few use that as their metric....

Elgin Baylor 13 years a Laker, averaged 27.4 ppg ( no three pointers) 13.5 rebounds per game, 4.6 assists. FG% .431

Kobe Bryant 15 years a Laker averaged 25.4 ppg ( with 3 pointers), 5.3 rebounds, 4.7 assists FG% .454 .337 from 3pts .


Baylor was a better scorer, better team mate, better leader, made people around him better, better rebounder and more versatile over all. And their FG% is comparable, Elgin might even be better when you add in Kobe's 3pt percentages


Baylor was a great great player. Maybe the most important laker ever if not the greatest... Important because it was his play which helped entice the move from Minn to LA and ultimately the Laker's pursuit of Kareem.
He was the first building block there to build on.

[stevemcqueen1]

Kareem had the most unstoppable shot in the history of the game. But as a total basketball player, which as minimal weaknesses as anyone who ever played. I gotta give it to MJ.

-superior scorer
-superior perimeter defender
-possessed the ability to facilitate, in the mode of a PG
-One of the hardest workers on his game
-Made his teammates better

His only weakness, IMO was his 3 point shooting. Kareem was an all time great, he's not above or on par with MJ, IMO. No one is.

Kareem didn't make his teammates better? The man absolutely controlled the paint. Also why should Jordan being a better perimeter defender and point guard matter when Kareem was a center? Ok then, Kareem was a better post defender and rebounder. I also think the difference between the two as scorers is tiny to the point of not being a huge factor. Kareem is the career points leader after all and shot a ridiculous 56% for his career. And the thing was like 20 years long.

Kareem is also the greatest college basketball player ever. If you include college careers into the equation, Kareem passes Jordan. The difference between their NBA careers was not that huge unless you start playing the what if game with Jordan's retirement.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 01:45 PM ----------

Kobe was drafted out of highschool, if longevity of your career is your metric then few would compare with Kobe, but few use that as their metric....

Elgin Baylor 13 years a Laker, averaged 27.4 ppg ( no three pointers) 13.5 rebounds per game, 4.6 assists.

Kobe Bryant 15 years a Laker averaged 25.4 ppg ( with 3 pointers), 5.3 rebounds, 4.7 assists


Baylor was a better scorer, better team mate, better leader, made people around him better, better rebounder and more versatile over all.

Your not accounting for the pace of the NBA Baylor played in, nor are you accounting for his lesser efficiency. The NBA was breakneck back then, you had multiple guys average 20+ rebounds per game for whole seasons back then. They just ran fast breaks and chucked up bad shots like crazy. The lack of the 3 pt line is more than made up by the ridiculous pace.

You also can't penalize Kobe for inefficiency by saying at his worst, he's AI and then not do the same for Baylor. Baylor was a forward and he shot worse than Kobe did, career FG % of .431 to Kobe's .454.

I think Kobe absolutely deserves credit for playing at the level he has for the ridiculous number of games he's played. It's at least four or five more whole seasons worth of games than Baylor. That means he's given you more chances to win rings, which is the point of having a great player to me.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 01:50 PM ----------

Also Kobe kills Baylor in career win shares and he also beats him soundly in WS/48. Better two way player than Baylor. And Baylor had some great teammates too so the talent level around them is very even and can not be used as an excuse for Baylor.

[Sticksboi05]

the hate im seeing of Kobe's greatness is mindboggling and sad.

Let's accept for a moment that championships actually are team accomplishments that also occur due to circumstance and fortune, not individual glory shows. So, ignore everyone's championship count and look at the stats, advanced metrics and the eye test. Then try to argue Kobe as a top 5 player ever. The only thing in his favor is longevity. He is top 10 though.

[JMS]

Your not accounting for the pace of the NBA Baylor played in, nor are you accounting for his lesser efficiency. The NBA was breakneck back then, you had multiple guys average 20+ rebounds per game for whole seasons back then. They just ran fast breaks and chucked up bad shots like crazy. The lack of the 3 pt line is more than made up by the ridiculous pace.

You also can't penalize Kobe for inefficiency by saying at his worst, he's AI and then not do the same for Baylor. Baylor was a forward and he shot worse than Kobe did, career FG % of .431 to Kobe's .454.

I think Kobe absolutely deserves credit for playing at the level he has for the ridiculous number of games he's played. It's at least four or five more whole seasons worth of games than Baylor. That means he's given you more chances to win rings, which is the point of having a great player to me.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 01:50 PM ----------

Also Kobe kills Baylor in career win shares and he also beats him soundly in WS/48. Better two way player than Baylor. And Baylor had some great teammates too so the talent level around them is very even and can not be used as an excuse for Baylor.

[/quote]

Kobe is newer and you remember him clearer.. which is the same argument Jordan has over Dr. Jay or Russel...

Baylor had comparable players around him sometimes, but not consistently. Baylor played on some pretty bad Lakers teams in Minn and LA. FG% is a wash.... The Lakers ran their offense through Baylor just like they do through Kobe for much of there careers; so the guard and forrward comparison aren't a dramatic difference. And your dismissing Baylor's rebounding is laughable.. Baylor was a very versatile big who flat out could out defend, score and rebound Kobe on his best day... Kobe is a great great player... but the Lakers have had many great great players.
a few of them even better than Kobe. And remember Baylor isn't even top 3 Laker on my list.

[stevemcqueen1]

Kobe is newer and you remember him clearer.. which is the same argument Jordan has over Dr. Jay or Russel...

Baylor had comparable players around him sometimes, but not consistently. Baylor played on some pretty bad Lakers teams in Minn and LA. FG% is a wash.... The Lakers ran their offense through Baylor just like they do through Kobe for much of there careers; so the guard and forrward comparison aren't a dramatic difference. And your dismissing Baylor's rebounding is laughable.. Baylor was a very versatile big who flat out could out defend, score and rebound Kobe on his best day... Kobe is a great great player... but the Lakers have had many great great players.
a few of them even better than Kobe. And remember Baylor isn't even top 3 Laker on my list.[/QUOTE]

By any individual measure, Jordan is much, much better than Russell or Dr J. I don't really want to get into that debate though.

The difference in FG% is not a wash. Kobe's is significantly better. Baylor played forward, his should be much higher Kobe's and it's actually a lot lower. Kobe's FG% has also been depressed by taking a lot of 3s, which are high value shots. If Baylor was shooting from comparable ranges without the line, then that's just stupid shot taking because of the limited value and efficiency of the shot. There really is no excuse for him shooting so much worse than Kobe. And you certainly can't criticize Kobe for poor shooting, comparing him to AI, and not do so even more for Baylor.

Baylor's rebounding totals are hugely inflated by the fact the NBA he played in was almost twice as fast as it is today. And Kobe, by any measure I can think of, is a better defender than Baylor was. Kobe can also score in ways Baylor had probably never imagined. And please, if Kobe played Baylor in that hypothetical one on one game, he would destroy him.

If Baylor was better than Kobe he would at least be within shouting distance of Kobe's career WS totals and WS/48 pace. Kobe's numbers here crush his.

[Sticksboi05]

When all is said and done, I think Kobe will definitely be remembered as a better Laker than Magic. Magic was not the two way player Kobe used to be and benefited from playing on much better teams throughout his career than Kobe did (which is saying something, because Kobe has had some great teams). Kobe is going to play for at lot longer than Magic did.

He also was not blessed having to go up against the 80s Celtics amongo ther stacked teams to win rings. Imagine Magic being fortunate enough to go against the 2000 Pacers, 2001 76ers and 2002 Nets...my God what a joke trio of competition in comparison.

The "all-around" argument is an interesting one in sports.

For example, Sergei Fedorov was a better "all-around" player than Mario Lemieux but nobody in their right mind would try to begin to kind of argue he was a greater hockey player. And on another point, Larry > Kobe, especially if you have a coach running a solid defensive system.

[stevemcqueen1]

For some context on pace:

1960-61 season, league average NBA team had 6009 rebounds over an 82 game season or a per game average of 73.27.

2005-06 season, league average NBA team had 3358 rebounds or 40.95.

I think it's also worth pointing out that for over half of Elgin Baylor's career there were only 8 or 9 teams in the NBA. There is just no way he's better than Kobe.

[deejaydana]

1. It was her driveway not a basketball court.

2. I don't think it was an indication of how cheap he was, but just his personality in terms of here's a job to do and I can do it so I'll do it.

He's brought this up before in another thread and it's mostly incorrect by him. Bird came from the most humble of beginnings, he was close to dirt poor. He also had a gigantic work ethic and he was very much a country bumpkin (that's not a slight btw). It was not usual for him to do the work he did at his mother's house and it WAS NOT because he was cheap. JMS keeps thinking this is the case but even his other stories that he's read are misinterpreted.

[JMS]

By any individual measure, Jordan is much, much better than Russell or Dr J.

As for Russel, Yes any individual measure except for Championships, Rebounding Titles, and league MVP's (both tied at 5),

I would throw overall defense in there too... Jordan was a great great defensive player, but Russel changed the game.

The difference in FG% is not a wash. Kobe's is significantly better. Baylor played forward, his should be much higher Kobe's and it's actually a lot lower. Kobe's FG% has also been depressed by taking a lot of 3s, which are high value shots. If Baylor was shooting from comparable ranges without the line, then that's just stupid shot taking because of the limited value and efficiency of the shot.

Come on Kobe has 2.3% better field goal percentage than Elgin Baylor while averaging fewer points and about 9 fewer rebounds per game over his career....

This is what we call a selective metric. I'm sure you don't think Dr. Jay was a better overall than Kobe even though Julius Erving had 5% better FG% for his career while only averaging about 1 point less per game over his career.
Yet Kobe was better than E.. because E. had 2.3% smaller FG% while scoreing 2.3 more ppg. Not even taking rebounding into the picture.



Dr. J -------------------FG% .506 -------------------PPG 24.2 -------------------Rebounds 8.4
Kobe -------------------FG% .454 -------------------PPG 25.1 -------------------Rebounds 5.3
E. Baylor ------------------FG% .431 -------------------PPG 27.4 -------------------Rebounds 13.9


Just for Fun...

Bird -------------------FG% .496 -------------------PPG 24.3 -------------------Rebounds 10 -------------------Assists 6.3
Magic -------------------FG% .520 -------------------PPG 19.5 -------------------Rebounds 7.2 -------------------Assists 11.2


Elgin Baylor was a better scorer, better team mate, better rebounder, better leader, and overall more versatile player than Kobe. Period..






[/COLOR]

He's brought this up before in another thread and it's mostly incorrect by him. Bird came from the most humble of beginnings, he was close to dirt poor. He also had a gigantic work ethic and he was very much a country bumpkin (that's not a slight btw). It was not usual for him to do the work he did at his mother's house and it WAS NOT because he was cheap. JMS keeps thinking this is the case but even his other stories that he's read are misinterpreted.

Dude, read his autobiography... "Drive" published in 1989. You read that book and then assert Bird wasn't cheap and I will defer to your equally informed but different interpretation of his own words.... I don't disagree with anything else you said. Bird was dirt poor. When he dropped out of U of Indiana; Bird worked on the back of a Trash truck and Indiana State recruiter met Bird bagging groceries at the local grocery store.. So yeah, bird had a serious work ethic and saw himself as a working lunch pale guy. But Bird was also a very cheap guy and remained that way throughout his NBA career.

I mean come on if some dude buy's you a beer do you mention it along with the price in your Autobiography? Do you spend an entire chapter on that event given you signed with a different team and thus the entire encounter is rather meaningless? Talking about the brand, the price, how many you stuck the scout with before you signed with another team? Bird did. Bird did that throughout his autobiography. He was very aware of what things cost and was uncomfortable in many environments which his fame and NBA career placed him. I don't say that to knock the guy. That's just the way he was. He was a poor small town kid who had learned the hardway to be mistrustful of folks who weren't. As a ritual Bird stuck to that code.

[stevemcqueen1]

He also was not blessed having to go up against the 80s Celtics amongo ther stacked teams to win rings. Imagine Magic being fortunate enough to go against the 2000 Pacers, 2001 76ers and 2002 Nets...my God what a joke trio of competition in comparison.

The "all-around" argument is an interesting one in sports.

For example, Sergei Fedorov was a better "all-around" player than Mario Lemieux but nobody in their right mind would try to begin to kind of argue he was a greater hockey player. And on another point, Larry > Kobe, especially if you have a coach running a solid defensive system.

True. But then again couldn't you balance that out a bit by pointing out how bad the western conference was after the Lakers? There was a similar but opposite imbalance towards the West during Kobe's era. Yes, the EC finalists were garbage but the Lakers still had to get past the Spurs and the Kings. No those teams may not be the 80's Celtics or 90's Bulls, but then the Lakers weren't as loaded as the 80's version.

I think it all kind of evens out in the end.

I'd also hesitate to make a hockey analogy because the game is so different. I think it's definitely more important to be a two way player in basketball than in hockey because in hockey you specialize so much more. In basketball, you're expected to be on both ends of the court and contributing the whole time depending on who has the ball.

For me it breaks down like this. Better leader and facilitator and teammate? I believe Magic. Magic's on a different planet as a passer and ball handler. But Kobe is on a similarly far planet as a scorer and defender. So then tie goes to the individual numbers and this is where Kobe has him beat IMO. He's already passed Magic in career win shares and I think it's going to be a really big gap by the time Kobe finally retires.

I mean he's showing no signs of slowing whatsoever, putting up an MVP caliber year so far at over 1,400 games in. After a certain point his volume of stats is just going to overwhelm Magic. I don't think he's passed Magic yet. Magic is one of the greatest ever and could very well be top 5 ever. But I think it could happen by the end. It's going to be close.

[Sticksboi05]

True. But then again couldn't you balance that out a bit by pointing out how bad the western conference was after the Lakers? There was a similar but opposite imbalance towards the West during Kobe's era. Yes, the EC finalists were garbage but the Lakers still had to get past the Spurs and the Kings. No those teams may not be the 80's Celtics or 90's Bulls, but then the Lakers weren't as loaded as the 80's version.

I think it all kind of evens out in the end.

I'd also hesitate to make a hockey analogy because the game is so different. I think it's definitely more important to be a two way player in basketball than in hockey because in hockey you specialize so much more. In basketball, you're expected to be on both ends of the court and contributing the whole time depending on who has the ball.

For me it breaks down like this. Better leader and facilitator and teammate? I believe Magic. Magic's on a different planet as a passer and ball handler. But Kobe is on a similarly far planet as a scorer and defender. So then tie goes to the individual numbers and this is where Kobe has him beat IMO. He's already passed Magic in career win shares and I think it's going to be a really big gap by the time Kobe finally retires.

I mean he's showing no signs of slowing whatsoever, putting up an MVP caliber year so far at over 1,400 games in. After a certain point his volume of stats is just going to overwhelm Magic. I don't think he's passed Magic yet. Magic is one of the greatest ever and could very well be top 5 ever. But I think it could happen by the end. It's going to be close.

True but Magic's career, like Larry's ended well before it should've. I'll take a prime Larry over both. I'll take a prime Magic over Kobe because Magic was a much better teammate and could play all five positions on the court. But it's close between all three. I think Larry at his peak from 84-88, man, he could do everything, score, drive the lane, shoot from inside and outside,. make clutch plays on both ends, defend, pass at the level of elite PG's and was tough as nails.

[JMS]

True but Magic's career, like Larry's ended well before it should've. I'll take a prime Larry over both. I'll take a prime Magic over Kobe because Magic was a much better teammate and could play all five positions on the court. But it's close between all three. I think Larry at his peak from 84-88, man, he could do everything, score, drive the lane, shoot from inside and outside,. make clutch plays on both ends, defend, pass at the level of elite PG's and was tough as nails.

Larry lost time in college. He dropped out of University of Indiana and spent a year on a trash truck and bagging groceries..before returning to school and taking Indianan state to the final four. Bird was three years older than Magic Johnson when they both entered the league in 79.

Bird in his autobiography spoke of another University of Indiana star Kent Benson who was an upper classman who gave Bird a hard time when Larry was a freshman, causing Larry to drop out of the school after only like 24 days. Kent Benson went #1 overall to Milwaukee Bucks in 1976 and spent like 9 years in the league while Larry was playing. Larry said in his book that he played extra hard whenever he played a team Kent Played for.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Is there anyway to rank them not in the games it took them but the minutes they played?