StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kobe Bryant is undeniably the most overrated sports star of this generation. He is unduly and undeservedly cheered and lauded by his fans.

The majority of Kobe Bryant's success lies not in his own abilities or his disposition, which ironically is quite destructive and cancerous, but in the immense fortune he experienced throughout his career in having several great minds and other great players pave the way for his credited glory. Dr. Jerry Buss, Jerry West, Phil Jackson--without these brilliant minds in his career to architect winning teams, Kobe's personality would have imploded any chances of building a strong team. Had he landed on another team, without such people in charge, all Kobe would have accomplished was producing a great stat line, and some individual accolades. His claim to any titles, though, would not exist.

Shaquille O'Neal was a far more noteworthy and impactful player than Kobe Bryant was, and history has rightly expressed that Kobe Bryant's first three rings were entirely due to Shaquille's dominance. Had it not been for his immense fortune in landing with O'Neal and Phil Jackson, Kobe would have just been another all-star shooting guard, who patterned his game after Michael Jordan. It can be argued that O'Neal would have gone on to win even more rings if he had been paired up with another skilled guard who was willing to play harmoniously.

But back to Kobe Bryant: the main reasons for the immense unwarranted love he receives are actually due to his showmanship on the basketball court. Kobe has an arsenal of aesthetically pleasing moves which undeniably generate attraction to his play, but unfortunately, obscure the general inefficiency of his play. Kobe is a streaky shooter at best--his poor field goal percentage has always been testament to the fact that he misses shots far more often than he makes them, and this latter point actually relates to many of his other personality failings, mainly that he is highly unjustifiably arrogant and stubborn. He is egotistical, and impetuous, and his petulance and insecurity have also come into greater spotlight in his later years as his inability to step aside for another better player to come in has become apparent. He is a person who ironically possesses many of the vices of someone striving to be successful, yet by copious amounts of fortune, has somehow attained success and a following of sycophantic, foolish fans. Also important to be noted is the undoubtedly suspect nature of his scruples: Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, and though he was not proven guilty, if one takes the time to read his affidavit, one sees that there are holes in his story. Now I am not declaring him to be guilty, but there is enough evidence for the possibility of his guilt to be feasible and, at the very least, warrant that the incident be noted.

To finalize, Kobe Bryant is a person whose immense fortune has greatly masked his numerous flaws: his character and personality are corrosive, and he is someone who should not be endeared by so many basketball fans.

What are your thoughts on Kobe Bryant?

Is this guy related to kobe beef somehow?

His Divine Shadow wrote:Is this guy related to kobe beef somehow?

Yeah, they're cousins, named after the same grandfather.

Someone hasn't left, what, 2006?

Frankly nobody has cared about Kobe for a while. It's been the Lebron show, mostly. Seriously, when Kobe gets a hour-long show to judge which team he'll end up picking, let me know...

I thought he'd retired by now.

I thought this was going to be an op/ed as opposed to someone's fanfiction.

Elheru Aran wrote:Someone hasn't left, what, 2006?

Frankly nobody has cared about Kobe for a while. It's been the Lebron show, mostly. Seriously, when Kobe gets a hour-long show to judge which team he'll end up picking, let me know...

One would think Kobe is irrelevant in the sports media by now, but because of his immense popularity, he still receives an absurd amount of coverage. The Los Angeles Lakers still have him as their franchise player, and, shockingly, can still effectively use him to get fans to buy tickets purely to see the guy play. Recently, an entire podcast came out I believe, which featured his early years with Shaquille O'Neal.

Zaune wrote:I thought he'd retired by now.

I'm sure most others would think the same as well. But, funnily enough, not only is he still playing professionally, there is a good chance that he will be signing yet another contract, after his current one ends this year.

Is this Handegg - related?

Edit: Ah, basketball. Blegh.

I am a Lakers fan and I agree with most of it. Look at how little it has changed. Oh well.

With Kobe confirming that this will be his last season, how do you assess his career?

He is an all-time great player, even if it is true that his popular image is out of proportion with his on-court production. Your OP is a wild exaggeration in many respects (and, to be honest, sounds like someone who never watched the NBA before, say, 2012; and certainly never played basketball).

It's true that the past few seasons Kobe has been an extremely poor basketball player. However, that is not reflective of his entire career. While he was always a volume shooter in the sense that his style of play was more like Carmelo Anthony than uber-efficient Steve Nash, for most of his career he was still above-average in terms of field goal percentage. Excluding the past three injury-riddled seasons (which I think is far when evaluating his career), he was generally hovering around league average field goal percentage. Not elite, but not as terrible as you make him out to be, or as terrible as he's been this season.

Further, field goal percentage is only a small part of efficiency on the court. While his overall field goal percentage wasn't elite, his career average points per shot is 1.29. That is, the expected point value of any shot he takes is 1.29 (jumping up to 1.33 if you ignore his last 3 seasons again). The league average for shooting guards is 1.21. In his MVP season he was at almost 1.4 points per shot. By means of comparison, Steph Curry's career average is 1.33 points per shot (although this season he is an out-of-this-world 1.56). The point is that it is misleading to say that Kobe was a radically inefficient player; at his peak, the expected point value of a Kobe possession was on par with a Curry one, now. A major part of this was that Kobe is great at getting free throws - and yes, picking up fouls IS a basketball skill. It was largely due to Kobe's stunning footwork and clever movements on offense (that you dismiss as being pure aesthetic) that he was able to make his offensive possessions a net positive by drawing fouls and efficiently hitting free throws (well above league average from the line).

In other facets of the game, Kobe also proved efficient. He was a good defender in that he was above average in getting steals and below average in COMMITTING fouls (an important aspect of defensive play). He was never a truly elite passer, but his career assist-to-turnover ratio is a healthy 1.57, compared to the league average of 1.3. For his position, he was a decent (but not great) rebounder. Similarly, every advanced metric I can find (PER, win shares, wins produced, WP/48, adjusted plus/minus, etc.) rates Kobe Bryant as being at least above average for most of his career, and during his peak well above average.

So, in short, I agree he is overrated in that he was never truly great the way Jordan was or Lebron is. He definitely isn't in the same category as those two, and similarly it is unquestionable that when it comes to the all-time rankings he falls behind Russell, Chamberlain, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Barkley, Duncan, Moses Malone, Olajuwon, and Robertson. But I think it would be hard to argue that he isn't at least on par with such recognize Hall-of-Famers as James Worthy, Patrick Ewing, or Rick Barry. So, he's probably not top 15 all time, but he's definitely no less than top 30. That's not a bad career by any means.

(I should also note, before you respond, that you will not find a greater Kobe hater than I do. I am a die-hard Boston Celtics fan, and have despised Kobe Bryant and the Lakers for as long as I can remember. I cheered when I heard he was retiring, because I do not want to have to watch him play anymore. But I am both a fan and admirer of basketball as a sport, and it's hard to completely overlook his contributions to the game.)

Ziggy Stardust wrote:He is an all-time great player, even if it is true that his popular image is out of proportion with his on-court production. Your OP is a wild exaggeration in many respects (and, to be honest, sounds like someone who never watched the NBA before, say, 2012; and certainly never played basketball).

It's true that the past few seasons Kobe has been an extremely poor basketball player. However, that is not reflective of his entire career. While he was always a volume shooter in the sense that his style of play was more like Carmelo Anthony than uber-efficient Steve Nash, for most of his career he was still above-average in terms of field goal percentage. Excluding the past three injury-riddled seasons (which I think is far when evaluating his career), he was generally hovering around league average field goal percentage. Not elite, but not as terrible as you make him out to be, or as terrible as he's been this season.

Further, field goal percentage is only a small part of efficiency on the court. While his overall field goal percentage wasn't elite, his career average points per shot is 1.29. That is, the expected point value of any shot he takes is 1.29 (jumping up to 1.33 if you ignore his last 3 seasons again). The league average for shooting guards is 1.21. In his MVP season he was at almost 1.4 points per shot. By means of comparison, Steph Curry's career average is 1.33 points per shot (although this season he is an out-of-this-world 1.56). The point is that it is misleading to say that Kobe was a radically inefficient player; at his peak, the expected point value of a Kobe possession was on par with a Curry one, now. A major part of this was that Kobe is great at getting free throws - and yes, picking up fouls IS a basketball skill. It was largely due to Kobe's stunning footwork and clever movements on offense (that you dismiss as being pure aesthetic) that he was able to make his offensive possessions a net positive by drawing fouls and efficiently hitting free throws (well above league average from the line).

In other facets of the game, Kobe also proved efficient. He was a good defender in that he was above average in getting steals and below average in COMMITTING fouls (an important aspect of defensive play). He was never a truly elite passer, but his career assist-to-turnover ratio is a healthy 1.57, compared to the league average of 1.3. For his position, he was a decent (but not great) rebounder. Similarly, every advanced metric I can find (PER, win shares, wins produced, WP/48, adjusted plus/minus, etc.) rates Kobe Bryant as being at least above average for most of his career, and during his peak well above average.

So, in short, I agree he is overrated in that he was never truly great the way Jordan was or Lebron is. He definitely isn't in the same category as those two, and similarly it is unquestionable that when it comes to the all-time rankings he falls behind Russell, Chamberlain, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Barkley, Duncan, Moses Malone, Olajuwon, and Robertson. But I think it would be hard to argue that he isn't at least on par with such recognize Hall-of-Famers as James Worthy, Patrick Ewing, or Rick Barry. So, he's probably not top 15 all time, but he's definitely no less than top 30. That's not a bad career by any means.

(I should also note, before you respond, that you will not find a greater Kobe hater than I do. I am a die-hard Boston Celtics fan, and have despised Kobe Bryant and the Lakers for as long as I can remember. I cheered when I heard he was retiring, because I do not want to have to watch him play anymore. But I am both a fan and admirer of basketball as a sport, and it's hard to completely overlook his contributions to the game.)

Let me begin by saying that I believe Kobe is a top 15 all-time player (between 13-15), and when I stated that Kobe is overrated in my OP, I was referring to how many view Kobe as a top 10 player. I understand that you don't believe that Kobe is top 10 either, so we agree there. Where we disagree is your claim that Kobe was efficient during the prime of his career. And before I begin commenting on Kobe's efficiency, I should add that the bulk of my OP did not merely focus on Kobe's inefficiency, but also his destructive personality and attitude, which has been the cause of a majority of his career setbacks. Given the type of players, coaches, and front office members Kobe has been graced with, his resume quickly changes from being impressive to being a massive underachievement.

In your response, you quickly shift from discussing field goal percentage to other statistics, and the general point you seem to be making is that, according to a few specific metrics, Kobe was an above average player. But drawing the line at above average is hardly praiseworthy. For someone touted as the league's best player from 2006-2010, being above average isn't good enough. For someone who has always been compared to basketball greats, being above average isn't good enough. For someone who has had the greenest light to shoot, having the highest usage rate and most field goal attempts year after year, being above average isn't good enough. Superstars in the league always receive the aid of the refs, especially in the regular season, so I'm not surprised that Kobe's ability to convert possessions into points was enhanced by what he added to his point total on the foul line.

The true metric which should be used to assess Kobe's efficiency is Kobe's very own ability. Kobe constantly forced the issue when trying to score on defenders; he took (and still does) multiple ill-advised shots despite his shots resulting in more misses than makes, and despite the fact that he is a gifted athlete and capable of playing more effectively than he opts to. Every so often, Kobe would become very effective and convert many of his shots before ultimately declining in efficiency. Moreover, he would take unneeded difficult shots at the expense of his teammates, and though he would be able to get away with such shots during the regular season, they often spelled doom in the playoffs. The Lakers should have won in 2004 against Detroit, but Kobe's selfish, idiotic gunning cost Shaq another ring (and FMVP); I recall one distinct possession in which Shaquille was practically holding off the entire Pistons front court, demanding the ball from Kobe, only for Kobe to ignore him and jack up another three pointer which missed badly. During Kobe's period in which he winning championships without Shaq, it was the length of his team's front court and the depth of his team which was far more of an asset than he was. Again, Kobe's inefficiency is just one part of my multifaceted critique of Kobe Bryant, but it's one which is symptomatic of the main problem with Kobe, which has been his personality and attitude.

One more thing: you briefly refer to the "way" in which Lebron is great, something which I will dispute as well, but I must first ask you to explicate why you consider Lebron great, and for additional clarity, how you are defining great?

Komodo9Joe wrote: Let me begin by saying that I believe Kobe is a top 15 all-time player (between 13-15), and when I stated that Kobe is overrated in my OP, I was referring to how many view Kobe as a top 10 player. I understand that you don't believe that Kobe is top 10 either, so we agree there.

Ah, I see, I slightly misinterpreted your OP. So we are mostly in agreement, then.

Komodo9Joe wrote: Where we disagree is your claim that Kobe was efficient during the prime of his career. And before I begin commenting on Kobe's efficiency, I should add that the bulk of my OP did not merely focus on Kobe's inefficiency, but also his destructive personality and attitude, which has been the cause of a majority of his career setbacks. Given the type of players, coaches, and front office members Kobe has been graced with, his resume quickly changes from being impressive to being a massive underachievement.

The problem is that this is utterly subjective. There's no reliable way of actually evaluating how his personality has impacted the team/organization the way you say, and there's now way of quantifying that impact to see if it was disproportionately worse than, say, Jordan.

Komodo9Joe wrote: In your response, you quickly shift from discussing field goal percentage to other statistics, and the general point you seem to be making is that, according to a few specific metrics, Kobe was an above average player. But drawing the line at above average is hardly praiseworthy. For someone touted as the league's best player from 2006-2010, being above average isn't good enough. For someone who has always been compared to basketball greats, being above average isn't good enough.

I don't think you're interpreting my post correctly. You are pointing it out as if "a few specific metrics" are saying he is above average, my post made it clear that from EVERY statistical angle you can think to evaluate Kobe, he has been AT LEAST an above average player for his career. By some metrics, he is well above average. Further, I was using his career-averaged numbers, which take into account both his not-that-impressive rookie campaigns and some of his later, older years (I only screened out the last 3 seasons due to the injuries, but even the 3 seasons prior to that he was declining due to age). If you look at JUST his peak production, circa 2004-2010, he comes out well above average from most statistical points of view.

You are not only conflating "above average" with "average", which is disingenuous, but you also don't seem to realize how rare it is for a player to be above average at almost every facet of the game. The vast majority of basketball players tend to be specialists to a certain extent; for example, Shaq was one of the best players of all time, but by some metrics he was well below average (he was never a good passer, he was turnover prone, he rarely got steals, he couldn't shoot more than a few feet away from the basket, and is one of the worst free throw shooters in the history of the game). Yet even you don't dispute his greatness. The fact is, the ability to produce at an above average level in just about every facet of the game is incredibly rare and a valuable skill.

Komodo9Joe wrote: Superstars in the league always receive the aid of the refs, especially in the regular season, so I'm not surprised that Kobe's ability to convert possessions into points was enhanced by what he added to his point total on the foul line.

You act as if this is somehow a bad thing? Getting to the foul line is a part of the game. It was a part of the game Kobe was historically great at. Your personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant because, by rule, it is part of the game, and the numbers don't lie.

Komodo9Joe wrote: The true metric which should be used to assess Kobe's efficiency is Kobe's very own ability.

This sentence is utter gibberish.

Komodo9Joe wrote:Kobe constantly forced the issue when trying to score on defenders; he took (and still does) multiple ill-advised shots despite his shots resulting in more misses than makes, and despite the fact that he is a gifted athlete and capable of playing more effectively than he opts to. Every so often, Kobe would become very effective and convert many of his shots before ultimately declining in efficiency. Moreover, he would take unneeded difficult shots at the expense of his teammates, and though he would be able to get away with such shots during the regular season, they often spelled doom in the playoffs.

First off, the LEAGUE AVERAGE is below 50% from the field, so almost every player's shot attempts miss more than they make, so using this as a special condemnation of Kobe is silly. I've already shown that for his career he was no more damaging from this perspective than anyone else. And, again, you are ignoring EVERY OTHER FACET OF THE GAME. You are focusing entirely on the one thing you perceive to be Kobe's flaw, and ignoring everything else. That's not making a rational argument, that's being intellectually dishonest, especially when I've already presented the numbers to you.

Komodo9Joe wrote: The Lakers should have won in 2004 against Detroit, but Kobe's selfish, idiotic gunning cost Shaq another ring (and FMVP).

Prove that Kobe's selfish, idiotic gunning cost Shaq another ring. Oh, wait, you can't.

This is idiotic. That 2004 Pistons team is arguably the greatest defensive team in the history of the NBA. That Lakers team was filled out with old, past their prime role players who couldn't contribute. And you focus on Kobe as the reason for the loss? If you want to make a case here, you're going to have to dig out the box scores from that game and show specifically how Kobe was responsible. You just saying, "derp I remember!" isn't evidence.

Komodo9Joe wrote:Again, Kobe's inefficiency is just one part of my multifaceted critique of Kobe Bryant, but it's one which is symptomatic of the main problem with Kobe, which has been his personality and attitude.

Translation: you just dislike the guy, so you are willing to go through great lengths to make up more reasons to criticize him, even when the numbers disagree with you. That's fine, I don't like Kobe either, but at least I'm not intellectually dishonest about it.

Komodo9Joe wrote: One more thing: you briefly refer to the "way" in which Lebron is great, something which I will dispute as well, but I must first ask you to explicate why you consider Lebron great, and for additional clarity, how you are defining great?

Ah, you dispute Lebron's greatness as well? That just shows you don't understand basketball at all. I mean, it's ludicrous on its face to even try to make an argument that Lebron isn't great. Every single advanced metric rates him as being one of the best basketball players ever. Even just looking down each element of the box score: he is an above average rebounder for a small forward; he might be the best non-point guard passer in the history of the league, with a career assist-to-turnover ratio of 2.1 (the average for small forwards is only 1.3 ... Lebron is closer to Magic Johnson at 2.6 then other individuals at his position); he is a good defender, not only fouling almost 50% less than average, but generating steals and blocks at above average rates; and in terms of scoring efficiency he is otherworldly. While he's never been a great 3 point shooter, he is unstoppable in the paint. While it is no longer true this season, for the past several seasons Lebron has led the league in terms of both volume AND efficiency within 5 feet of the basket, a feat which had never been accomplished for a player that was not a center. His expected points per shot hovers around 1.5, compared to the average of 1.2.

And this isn't even getting into discussion of how many games he has won, how he has been to five straight NBA finals, etc. etc.

I mean, hell, I'm not even a Lebron fan (as I said, I'm a Celtics fan, so Lebron is another old nemesis for me). But there isn't a single coherent and factual argument you can make that he isn't one of the greatest players of all time.

Ziggy Stardust wrote: Ah, I see, I slightly misinterpreted your OP. So we are mostly in agreement, then.

I wouldn't say "mostly." But I'm glad to see you make a concession of misinterpretation: that seems to be a running issue.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: Where we disagree is your claim that Kobe was efficient during the prime of his career. And before I begin commenting on Kobe's efficiency, I should add that the bulk of my OP did not merely focus on Kobe's inefficiency, but also his destructive personality and attitude, which has been the cause of a majority of his career setbacks. Given the type of players, coaches, and front office members Kobe has been graced with, his resume quickly changes from being impressive to being a massive underachievement.

The problem is that this is utterly subjective. There's no reliable way of actually evaluating how his personality has impacted the team/organization the way you say, and there's now way of quantifying that impact to see if it was disproportionately worse than, say, Jordan.

And? You're stating the obvious. You seem to have believed that specific part of my aspect was grounded in numbers for no reason. Invoking objectivity and quantifying is completely illogical when I was touching upon a subjective criticism, i.e. Kobe's fortune and help throughout his career and his abominable personality, but one which is also very much justified. Bringing up the absence of numbers as an issue in a subjective critique is nonsensical.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: In your response, you quickly shift from discussing field goal percentage to other statistics, and the general point you seem to be making is that, according to a few specific metrics, Kobe was an above average player. But drawing the line at above average is hardly praiseworthy. For someone touted as the league's best player from 2006-2010, being above average isn't good enough. For someone who has always been compared to basketball greats, being above average isn't good enough.

I don't think you're interpreting my post correctly. You are pointing it out as if "a few specific metrics" are saying he is above average, my post made it clear that from EVERY statistical angle you can think to evaluate Kobe, he has been AT LEAST an above average player for his career. By some metrics, he is well above average. Further, I was using his career-averaged numbers, which take into account both his not-that-impressive rookie campaigns and some of his later, older years (I only screened out the last 3 seasons due to the injuries, but even the 3 seasons prior to that he was declining due to age). If you look at JUST his peak production, circa 2004-2010, he comes out well above average from most statistical points of view.

Capitalizing does nothing here but illustrate the inaccuracies littered within this reply. No, you did not bring up "EVERY" statistical angle: you brought up a few that you thought would suffice. You seem to resort to your numbers as your fallback in making rebuttals, when numbers do not, and cannot, tell the whole story. If Kobe Bryant has an open teammate, yet insists on jacking up a shot rather than swinging the ball, that is statistically indescribable. If he brings the ball up the court, solely looking at his defender and how he can drop a bucket on him, without surveying the rest of the court and how his teammates may be available, that will not show up in numbers. If Kobe Bryant is provided the option to score in two ways--he has the option of getting off a shot, but chooses to get the shot off in a flashy, but low percentage manner, rather than through another option in his repertoire, it will not show up in numbers.

Now, to return to your earlier dumbfounding attempt to manufacture a statistically-grounded objective to a subjective censure of Kobe's personality, numbers cannot describe Kobe's on court or off court personality. There is no number to assess his leadership abilities, or more aptly, his lack thereof. I would think anybody would already have realized this, but you seem to be, both in this specific reply and the following ones, marshaling up numbers to argue platforms which aren't being constructed, Ziggy.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:You are not only conflating "above average" with "average", which is disingenuous, but you also don't seem to realize how rare it is for a player to be above average at almost every facet of the game. The vast majority of basketball players tend to be specialists to a certain extent; for example, Shaq was one of the best players of all time, but by some metrics he was well below average (he was never a good passer, he was turnover prone, he rarely got steals, he couldn't shoot more than a few feet away from the basket, and is one of the worst free throw shooters in the history of the game). Yet even you don't dispute his greatness. The fact is, the ability to produce at an above average level in just about every facet of the game is incredibly rare and a valuable skill.

Don't assume what I realize, Ziggy. You're having enough problems providing substantive replies dealing to what I have written. Conflating above average with average? Did you not read my post when I framed Kobe's perception as a star, and that, as a star, he does not shine much compared to other greats? What is there to realize about Kobe being greater than the average player: nothing, it is a fact, and something I even directly referred to when I brought up his status as the world's best player for a period. So the first half of that post your wrote above is a circuitous way of saying nothing.

Yes, great players do not have to be amazing in every category, and as I never said Shaq did, you're again cluttering your reply with common facts. But Shaquille's impact was transcendent, and in a comparison of star versus star, Shaq blows Kobe out of the water. Unless you want to/were trying to object to this latter point, you're not arguing any of my points.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: Superstars in the league always receive the aid of the refs, especially in the regular season, so I'm not surprised that Kobe's ability to convert possessions into points was enhanced by what he added to his point total on the foul line.

You act as if this is somehow a bad thing? Getting to the foul line is a part of the game. It was a part of the game Kobe was historically great at. Your personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant because, by rule, it is part of the game, and the numbers don't lie.

What acting? Where I am casting foul-drawing as a bad thing? Where are my personal feelings being raised on foul calls? Nowhere. Let me repeat that: nowhere. You're throwing out questions, ones which absolutely no basis since they are directly pinpointing my attitude, something you can neither observe nor speak of. So, refrain from these gratuitous, baseless conclusions, and stick to arguing what I have written, both in a way that makes sense and does not cause you to wander off in some process of judgment-reading/sentiment inference.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: The true metric which should be used to assess Kobe's efficiency is Kobe's very own ability.

This sentence is utter gibberish.

No, but your reply is symptomatic of much of the actual gibberish in your posts which confounds the subjective with the objective, and crosses between the two frequently in an attempt to counter-argue points in an exceedingly meaningless manner. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume here that confusion settled in your mind when you read my statement here so let me clarify: the true metric which should be used to evaluate Kobe's efficiency is the choices he makes on the court, given his ability and better knowledge to make other decisions, and as a star of the league, his ability in leading on-court and off-court should be compared to other stars, not the typical player.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote:Kobe constantly forced the issue when trying to score on defenders; he took (and still does) multiple ill-advised shots despite his shots resulting in more misses than makes, and despite the fact that he is a gifted athlete and capable of playing more effectively than he opts to. Every so often, Kobe would become very effective and convert many of his shots before ultimately declining in efficiency. Moreover, he would take unneeded difficult shots at the expense of his teammates, and though he would be able to get away with such shots during the regular season, they often spelled doom in the playoffs.

First off, the LEAGUE AVERAGE is below 50% from the field, so almost every player's shot attempts miss more than they make, so using this as a special condemnation of Kobe is silly. I've already shown that for his career he was no more damaging from this perspective than anyone else. And, again, you are ignoring EVERY OTHER FACET OF THE GAME. You are focusing entirely on the one thing you perceive to be Kobe's flaw, and ignoring everything else. That's not making a rational argument, that's being intellectually dishonest, especially when I've already presented the numbers to you.

If you're going to use an invective, i.e. "intellectually dishonest," use one that is actually applies. If by stressing Kobe's inefficiency as one point I used to argue Kobe's efficiency numerically, I am being singular in my critique (which actually isn't true), and it's "intellectually dishonest" to say otherwise.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: The Lakers should have won in 2004 against Detroit, but Kobe's selfish, idiotic gunning cost Shaq another ring (and FMVP).

Prove that Kobe's selfish, idiotic gunning cost Shaq another ring. Oh, wait, you can't.

This is idiotic. That 2004 Pistons team is arguably the greatest defensive team in the history of the NBA. That Lakers team was filled out with old, past their prime role players who couldn't contribute. And you focus on Kobe as the reason for the loss? If you want to make a case here, you're going to have to dig out the box scores from that game and show specifically how Kobe was responsible. You just saying, "derp I remember!" isn't evidence.

Shaq and Kobe's efficiency in this series was like night and day. But more importantly, and I realize I had really given you more credit in using logic when I began this discussion, turning to box scores and numbers cannot speak directly to a person's selfish mentality in trying to chuck his way in getting an FMVP over Shaq, but what can, is tape, Laker staff and players' comments, and simply watching the series. Gary Payton brought up Kobe's selfish behavior in this series in an interview asking him to look back at it, Phil Jackson strongly implied it (in his book The Last Season and later I believe as well, and there were other commentators (ESPN ones in particular) who threw much shade to Kobe in regards to his mentality.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote:Again, Kobe's inefficiency is just one part of my multifaceted critique of Kobe Bryant, but it's one which is symptomatic of the main problem with Kobe, which has been his personality and attitude.

Translation: you just dislike the guy, so you are willing to go through great lengths to make up more reasons to criticize him, even when the numbers disagree with you. That's fine, I don't like Kobe either, but at least I'm not intellectually dishonest about it.

All that reaching, to the point of doing some laughable opinion analysis that I "just dislike" Kobe and on my motivations in this thread, and beginning it with a so-called, quip of a "translation" of a statement that I typed so clearly that any person could understand it...who's being "dishonest" again?

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Komodo9Joe wrote: One more thing: you briefly refer to the "way" in which Lebron is great, something which I will dispute as well, but I must first ask you to explicate why you consider Lebron great, and for additional clarity, how you are defining great?

Ah, you dispute Lebron's greatness as well? That just shows you don't understand basketball at all. I mean, it's ludicrous on its face to even try to make an argument that Lebron isn't great. Every single advanced metric rates him as being one of the best basketball players ever. Even just looking down each element of the box score: he is an above average rebounder for a small forward; he might be the best non-point guard passer in the history of the league, with a career assist-to-turnover ratio of 2.1 (the average for small forwards is only 1.3 ... Lebron is closer to Magic Johnson at 2.6 then other individuals at his position); he is a good defender, not only fouling almost 50% less than average, but generating steals and blocks at above average rates; and in terms of scoring efficiency he is otherworldly. While he's never been a great 3 point shooter, he is unstoppable in the paint. While it is no longer true this season, for the past several seasons Lebron has led the league in terms of both volume AND efficiency within 5 feet of the basket, a feat which had never been accomplished for a player that was not a center. His expected points per shot hovers around 1.5, compared to the average of 1.2.

Yeah, disputing that he is "great" was poor word choice on my part (I'm writing these responses on the fly)--I was going to dispute his greatness in comparison to other superstar players. I was planning on getting your thoughts on where he ranks in your all time list of great players, and objecting if I felt you ranked him too high, but I'll desist on this issue as this thread isn't about Lebron, and my question was quite tangential. But I'm curious: who, in your opinion, are the 15 greatest players to ever in the NBA?