Watching games would lead to the same LeBron>Kobe conclusion.
no the fukk it wouldnt
Watching games would lead to the same LeBron>Kobe conclusion.
Hakeem was one of the best all-around players in history. Prime Hakeem was absolutely dominant on both sides of the ball and had virtually no flaws in his game. He would step up in the playoffs every year, one of the few superstars in history who got MORE dominant in playoff time. His shytty supporting casts really hurt his legacy, but the title runs in 1994 and 1995 were extraordinary. I have Hakeem in my top-5 and you could make an argument for #4.
I was already aware that in Kobestan, things like efficiency, leadership, and making the right play aren't considered attributes.
You do realize that outside of the Laker bubble, NO ONE thinks that "didn't defend his title" is actually a thing to care about.
Duncan got hurt in 2000, Ginobli got hurt in 2008, he was one play away from back-to-back titles in 2013/2014 and that one play was totally out of his control...shyt happens.
The idea that if Duncan won in 1999/2004/2005/2007/2014 he would be better than Kobe, but he's not because he only won in 1999/2003/2005/2007/2014.
Because the missed shots he puts up, especially the explicitly bad shots, often outweigh those other contributions.
Especially as he's very inconsistent in crashing the boards or making plays. And he often just keeps shooting, even when he's shooting like shyt and others are hot, so so much for being a decoy. The Lakers literally lost the 2004 championship because of that. Bird never shot the Celtics out of a title.
duncan and hakeem are not better then him foh hes sonned duncan too many times while duncan when was in his prime that debate was over back then it wasnt til years later people started disrespecting kobe putting nikkas like duncan ahead of him
.
How are the bolded better than Kobe? Please explain.
That's the thing, Kobe never had to face Duncan in any of the years when he had a dominant team (2005-2007 and 2013-2014), but Duncan with no other all-stars loses three times to peak Kobe and Shaq combined and that's supposed to show something. If Kobe had managed to play well enough to face them he'd only be 4-7 head-to-head...but in Kobestan math he gets extra credit for losing earlier.actually 4-3 since Kobe lost to Duncan in 2013 (so shook of TD he ain't even take the floor crying about some fake achilles injury )
actually 4-4 since Kobe avoided the playoffs altogether in 2005...in his prime :donhomer:
In what context tho? As him being one of their personal favorites, or in a actual historical perspective demonstrating the hierarchy of all time greats?
Cuz I’m sure more former players and people in general name Kobe on all time list before Duncan because of the Lakers lure and his mamba mentality, but Bean wasn’t quite on his level.
That's the thing, Kobe never had to face Duncan in any of the years when he had a dominant team (2005-2007 and 2013-2014), but Duncan with no other all-stars loses three times to peak Kobe and Shaq combined and that's supposed to show something. If Kobe had managed to play well enough to face them he'd only be 4-7 head-to-head...but in Kobestan math he gets extra credit for losing earlier.
Losing to Duncan in 1999 and 2003 is more embarrassing than any of Duncan's loses.
Only thing clear here is your lying.Kobe was leading the scoring half way thru the season and probably could've dropped 32+ppg that year but Phil told him to dial it back so Shaq stays engaged. He was clearly the best player on the Lakers from that point on and probably best in the league. If Kobe never played with Shaq he wouldn't have as many titles but his early career stats would've been ridiculous
I already reiterated that Hakeem is the one Kobe isn’t really near.
But then again y’all probably think Kobe is close to MJ just because he imitated his style.
Typical coli nikka rhetoric when they don’t have any argument
What's the problem with being top 15, MJ is top 15, Lebron is top 15, Magic is top 15.
Imagine being back in 2001 again and having someone seriously suggest this bullshyt.
Shaq was widely considered the most dominant player in the game, possibly the most dominant ever, while Kobe barely even showed up on the MVP ballot and didn't even make 1st-team All-NBA.
Imagine 2001 Shaq getting outscored by 10 by his Finals matchup.
Kareem needed magic to sustain his career, lakers went to the finals as soon as magic arrived and went to the finals after kareem retired
magic won 3 league mvp's and 3 finals mvp's in that same span. kareem 1 league mvp 1 finals mvp kobe 00000000 anything
shaq and magic were the engines of the lakers dynasties you can't rewrite history sorry