Kobe is the best player in the NBA, and with a guy in the middle like Shaq unstoppable. He would be even better if his big head didn't slow him down so much. The Lakers snatched him up as a kid and won't let him go. He will cry until his contract is up. Shaq was the better cornerstone of a team. Kobe is just a highlight reel without support or the desire to contribute on a team level. Its all about Kobe. I'd take Magic Johnson in his prime anyday. Best all around ball player ever. Made everybody around him look great. Kobe just makes Kobe look good. All this coming from a discusted Laker fan.
The problem with these who the best player arguments is that everyone argues for their choice based on different criteria. Maybe we should decide what are the most important criteria are before we have at it, b/c if not we are simply talking past each other. For example, i highly value the intangibles, like the ability to make your team better, your desire to win, and one's ability to lead. For me this is why MJ gets the nod over Kobe for me. While both have the same obsessive, insatiable desire to win, MJ was a tremendous leader and definitely made his teammates better. I just don't see this with Kobe. I think that this is where MJ's 6 rings to Kobe's 3 comes into play. While the rings don't automatically mean Jordan was better (this point has been established above), it does provide some solid evidence that MJ was in fact someone who made his teammates better and who was their leader (see the two year Jordanless Bulls inbetween the threepeats). Kobe's lack of a ring since Shaq has left, where Kobe has been the clear "leader" communicates something i think, like how the Bulls weren't able to win with Pippen at the helm. Obviously this could change, Kobe could develop into an amazing leader, but we're arguing today and not in the distant future. So what is everyone else criteria?
I'm in agreement with you, especially since the goal of every team that plays in the NBA is to win a championship. You hear players all the time saying a MVP award or an All-Star appearance is nice but the only thing that really matters is a championship. Teams don't draft players so they can win scoring titles, they draft them so the team can win a championship. I believe that until a player wins a title they cannot be truely considered as the best player in the NBA. Though after last night I will admit LeBron James is fucking amazing.
My criteria changes regularly. I like the criteria "if you were starting a team right now, who would be chosen first, second, etc." If at any point in your career, you weren't first, then you can't be the best ever. In terms of measurables, I don't know how you can compare perimeter players and post players.
That's a great point YYM. While we all argue about what makes a player great, let's listen to what the actual players value. This isn't another much-maligned appeal to authority (although i think that to reduce the only way to know information to logical reason is untenable). It doesn't establish as fact (like an appeal to authority would attempt to do) that championships matter in considering great players, but it is a piece of evidence that adds to my argument that championships matter. If you play to win the game (thanks herm), then why wouldn't the fact that some have won more than others be taken in conjunction with intangibles and statistics to build a cumulative case for the best player? I think that this is how we can best discern who is great. I think that if all of these factors are allowed to come into play, Jordan at the very least belongs in the elite class of all time greats, if not the greatest ever. However, at this point i don't see Kobe in the same light. He is a great player, a Hall of Famer for sure, but even among HoF some rise to the top, and he isn't one yet.
Great Players don't just run up their point totals So why is Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game considered to be the greatest, single game production by one player? One doesn't accumalate 100 points in a single game if you don't 'run up their point total.' So what is everyone else criteria? I'll still take MJ. I'm not going to base my decision on the fact that MJ has 6 rings but more for him being able to elevate even the most obscure player and put them in a spot to excel (i.e. John Paxson, Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong, ect..) and still continue to dominate a game.
I'd take Tim Duncan over Kobe Bryant any day. Kobe is the best perimeter talent in the league but he lets his emotions get the best of him on and off the court. Have you ever heard of anyone on the Spurs in legal troubles or having locker room troubles???? Thats because San Antonio is the most respectable franchise in all of sports.
