So should Kobe be ranked in the top 10 or not?

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Bird was pretty much what we had with Dirk Nowitzki

How old are you...... not only do they play different positions... they played the game a lot differently......

 

[NoHalfWay]

Not really..... Bird had to fuss and cuss to get D.J. and that's when the Celtics legacy got new burn.... tell me this..... what skill does Bird have that is>>> Kobe's

Then how did the Celtics win a title in ‘81 before DJ got there?

Bird was a better passer, rebounder, more proficient shooter, and had a higher basketball IQ

Kobe was far more athletic, a better defender, and more explosive scorer

 

[murksiderock]

One thing I think that strangely flies under the radar is how much Kobe's legacy is helped by those 3 titles in his first 6 years. If his career played out the exact same way from 2002-03 to the end, or if his first 6 years was spent in Charlotte or somewhere without the championships and the rest of his career played out exactly the same, he'd be considered a Top ~20 player, but not a soul would really be arguing him as Top 10...

A lot of guys would have loved to have traded to a team with arguably the GOAT owner, arguably the GOAT executive, arguably the GOAT coach, and a guy who would soon become the best player in the sport and is a Top 10 GOAT to most people. Kobe got to develop without the burden of expectations other than those he had for himself, and it resulted in three championships he probably wouldn't have otherwise; he certainly wasn't developed enough to captain a championship run. To many people that isnt worth more than guys like Bird who walked in the door and turned a team from losers to contenders. Kobe got the 3 extra titles, but for some that just isnt worth as much for guys who specifically came knocking shyt down as the main guy immediately...

The 3peat is part of his legacy, and obviously he was integral in getting those 3 rings, but I think when people weigh his work with other guys, you just understand that's what makes his Top 10 or higher case solidified. Those chips were his Oscar with Kareem '71 title---->how many rings would Oscar have if he was able to get drafted into Philadelphia and play with Wilt? Those guys played with great players but never anyone the caliber of each other until the end of their careers; Kobe got a guy his caliber early on, before Kobe was really Kobe. There would be no Top 10 argument without it because while he'd still be an All-Timer, the work in the rest of his career wasn't quite demonstrative enough to make him Top 10 on its own...

Why should a team accomplishment matter when ranking individual players? The best I've ever seen Kobe play was in 03, 06 and 07. You know how many rings he has to show for it? Zero. Why? Because its a team accomplishment. He was surrounded by old washed up players in 03 and utter trash in 06 and 07. Why should players be judged by the teammates that they have? We should rank players on their impact, skillset and dominance they had over their peers. This isn't tennis where you can beat players one on one.

Impact, yes. Dominance, yes. Kobe is one of the most impactful players The League has seen and it's still hard to argue him Top 5 on impact alone, with objective respect to the impact some guys had before him, including Bird. Kobe at his most dominant was comparable but I think just short of Bird----->they didn't play in the same era so you gotta measure then other ways and Bird comes out looking more dominant at peak...

Skillset is way, way overvalued on here, because first of all, all of these guys in Top 10 contention were supremely skilled. All of them, they just manifested their skills in different ways. Also, skill doesn't translate to results, there have been a ton of players with high level skill who didn't accomplish much in their careers, start with Vince Carter and go from there. He had almost every skill in the book, is he ok your Top 10?

Team accomplishments have to be measured, but your impact on the team accomplishment is measured as well. You said it yourself, Kobe Bryant at his very best, what most people consider his best seasons, couldn't lead championship runs. Other guys have. A lot of variables go into these things but when we're stacking greats at this level, this is how you split hairs...

Bird at his very best ('86 and '84 were certainly two of his best seasons) was leading championship runs, ergo, his impact on the team accomplishment was greater when he played at his very best. And other guys have led championship runs during their best years...

This isn't something I place heavy emphasis on, it's just a smaller thing that stands out as why Bird has a case over Kobe. That's all...

Not really..... Bird had to fuss and cuss to get D.J. and that's when the Celtics legacy got new burn.... tell me this..... what skill does Bird have that is>>> Kobe's

Bird was better at leading the break, greater distributor, greater distance shooter, his shooting advantage probably makes him arguably a greater scorer, better rebounder, his feel for the game was probably greater too, at least according to his legend...

This cant be a serious question lol. I'm not even one of these guys who thinks skillset is how should most prominently judge guys, but its unbelievable to me that so many guys on here really think nobody else ever, had comparable or greater skillsets than Kobe...except Mike, yall always do the, "besides Mike, Kobe skill over everybody" thing lmao...

Just shows either an unknowing or disrespect of the few other great players on his level in the conversation...

I don’t think y’all realize the impact Bird had on his team

Do you know what Boston was doing the year before Bird came on the team and how shyt just flipped?

This is before Parish, McHale, Dennis Johnson even arrived on the team

They don't fam, there's always a minimizing of everyone except Mike. They always do this on here. Its unbelievable...

 

[NoHalfWay]

How old are you...... not only do they play different positions... they played the game a lot differently......

Wtf are you talking about? Bird played the 3 & 4 most of his career. A true precursor to the stretch 4

Of course they played the game differently, it’s clearly not a direct comparison. It was more comparing their scoring prowess due to their proficiency as elite shooters

That’s why I said if you added those attributes to Dirk, you’d get an approximation of what Bird was. Bird was a point forward Dirk was not.

 

[Regular_P]

Bird was more impactful as far as team success and more dominant in his era than Kobe was

Bird was pretty much what we had with Dirk Nowitzki... but if you made him a couple inches shorter, better off the dribble & around the rim, better rebounder, elite passing, and a higher basketball IQ

Kobe has the accolades and notoriety to argue him over Bird. But in all reality, when Bird was healthy and at his peak he was regarded as the preeminent player of the 80’s decade

Kobe has to share that claim with 2 other guys in the 2000’s.

Oh, so Magic and Jordan didn't exist now?

Kobe went to seven Finals compared to Bird's five, so I don't see how Bird was more impactful in that regard either. Bird had a shorter prime and his own playoff failures as well.

 

[MikelArteta]

If you don’t have Kobe in your top ten you are committing blasphemy

 

[Houston911]

I'm going to assume the people that think Magic and Bird are in a different tier than Kobe Bryant didn't see Magic and Bird play or maybe they watched Kobe play with their hands over their eyes.

Basically

And this "if Kobe stayed in Charlotte" has to stop

He would have scored a hell of a lot more points and had more than impressives all across the board?

How do yall know who they would have drafted and signed in free agency?

 

[Houston911]

What hurts Kobe's case for top 5 is efficiency and lack of accolades. I don't see how anyone cannot have him in the top 10 though.

I think this is why players and fans be on opposite sides of debated a lot of times

45 percent vs 50 percent sounds like a pretty sizeable difference

But in an actual game it breaks down to one guy shooting 9-20 and the other guy shooting 10-20

Players are looking at the system you play in, the degree of difficulty on your shots and shyt like that. In the grand scheme of things they aren't really tripping off one extra made shot per 20 attempts if the context shows that the "inefficient" guy is taking much tougher shots

This is why players always called Kobe the best scorer while guys on the internet would say "well actually his TS and points per shot indicates that there are actually 14 guys who score better currently"

 

[fifth column]

You can make the argument both ways. I slightly favor Bird but don't think it's a big deal and I could make the argument the other way, too. Here's what I'd say for Bird, though:

•slightly higher peak than Kobe, whether you're talking GOAT year ('86 Bird vs '06 Kobe) or 5-year peaks
•Bird was the best player on all three of his championship runs; Kobe was the best player 2/5 of his championships; Bird didn't get to stack championships with the Shaq of his day (woulda been Kareem or Moses) carrying the load early to titles
•Bird was a Day 1 phenom wrecking shyt from the start
•skillset to skillset, Bird was a much more dynamic offensive player overall, a better shooter, and you could easily argue he was a more dangerous scorer
•that run of three straight MVP's is some legend shyt and it just ain't the MVP's because a few guys have matched Bird's production 1983-86 but didn't win three straight MVPs. Kobe isn't one of them, no consecutive three year run he was on matches Bird's in this stretch

It ain't a big gap at all because I can turn this argument in Kobe's favor pretty easily, Bird definitely ain't in some whole separate tier from Kobe, but I think the aggregate of Bird's work gives him the slight edge. Even if you disagree, I find it incredulous that nikkas don't even "see" how Bird has an argument...



How many people have you seen or heard saying Bill Russell was the greatest player ever to them? The GOAT argument was only about titles to fit a certain angle, it was never pure and objectively about titles because 99% of basketball heads don't say Russell is the greatest, and if it was objectively about titles, there could be no debate because it could never be argued that anybody is even close to him in titles...

So the ring count was always smoke and mirrors and rightfully so, championships have to be contextualized because they all aren't won the same. Funny thing is, before Jordan Mystique ring count didn't determine GOATness because plenty of old heads swore by Wilt (2), Oscar (1), or Kareem (6). Jordan Propaganda made the last quarter century a ring dikk-measuring contest, and thankfully I think as an entire new generation of basketball heads come to adulthood and didn't see Mike and weren't influenced by him, it's getting back to how it was before then. Rings do matter. They just aren't the end-all, be-all, and for most of NBA history outside of the quarter century of unrelenting Jordan Mystique, they never were the end-all be-all...

You can make a case for Kobe as Top 5, it just isn't a strong one. Part of his argument as Top 5 would be the 5 rings. But more than five guys have had higher peaks than Kobe, dominated the game to a higher degree, are more decorated, won more as the best player on good teams, etc. Those are easy arguments for why he shouldn't make Top 5...

What is the MJ mystique that you speak of? I see this get brought up but no one can explain this “mystique”

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

I don’t think y’all realize the impact Bird had on his team

Do you know what Boston was doing the year before Bird came on the team and how shyt just flipped?

This is before Parish, McHale, Dennis Johnson even arrived on the team

Let's not omit it was HOFers on that squad with juice left......

Then how did the Celtics win a title in ‘81 before DJ got there?

Bird was a better passer, rebounder, more proficient shooter, and had a higher basketball IQ

Kobe was far more athletic, a better defender, and more explosive scorer

2 out of 3 during the first round.... (maybe even some game throwing).Rockets had a losing record if I'm not mistaken going into the playoffs...... If you think that roster the Celtics had was going to beat a prime LakeShow then you need to shut the fukk up and admit you were born after that era

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

They don't fam, there's always a minimizing of everyone except Mike. They always do this on here. Its unbelievable...

What the fukk does this even mean? Someone tells the truth about player is directly connected to uplifting Jordan.... that's a juvenile train of thought

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Bird was better at leading the break, greater distributor, greater distance shooter, his shooting advantage probably makes him arguably a greater scorer, better rebounder, his feel for the game was probably greater too, at least according to his legend...

This cant be a serious question lol. I'm not even one of these guys who thinks skillset is how should most prominently judge guys, but its unbelievable to me that so many guys on here really think nobody else ever, had comparable or greater skillsets than Kobe...except Mike, yall always do the, "besides Mike, Kobe skill over everybody" thing lmao...

Just shows either an unknowing or disrespect of the few other great players on his level in the conversation...

First of all, I think Bird >> than Dirk.... 2nd... .Did you even see Bird play.... you didn't see a prime Lake Show, so what can you say about Bird with your own eyes?

 

[NoHalfWay]

Oh, so Magic and Jordan didn't exist now?

Kobe went to seven Finals compared to Bird's five, so I don't see how Bird was more impactful in that regard either. Bird had a shorter prime and his own playoff failures as well.

Magic did not even close the gap until the latter part of the 80’s. He was able to pass Bird up in accolades after his decline due to his debilitating injuries. Peak for peak Bird was a hair better than Magic, but they both share that decade

Mike was the most transcendent talent in the league by the mid-late 80’s but did not have the team success. The 90’s is his decade

Kobe went to more Finals yes, he was the leading force behind 3 of those trips and won 2 as the best player. Bird won 3 titles as the best player

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

That’s why I said if you added those attributes to Dirk, you’d get an approximation of what Bird was. Bird was a point forward Dirk was not.

So not only are we comparing different eras, we gon deal in hypotheticals in a bad way... ok.. I see what it is

 

[NoHalfWay]

Let's not omit it was HOFers on that squad with juice left......






2 out of 3 during the first round.... (maybe even some game throwing).Rockets had a losing record if I'm not mistaken going into the playoffs...... If you think that roster the Celtics had was going to beat a prime LakeShow then you need to shut the fukk up and admit you were born after that era

Wtf does any of this have to do with what Bird was able to do in his era? They all had to play under the best of 3 rules back then. I didn’t have to be born in that era to know that the Lakers woulda washed that incarnation of the Celtics