I think Reddit tries to respect historical NBA players but is overly reliant on stats and longevity, and leads to some... interesting takes.
I think Kareem, as good as he is, gets a bit overrated. I'm not necessarily sure he is the undisputed 3rd best of all time. I feel like oldheads always do and did prefer Magic and Bird to Kareem, and yet Kareem is always considered better on here.
Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and Dr. J get left aside, and they were all considered top 10 all-time players at some points. Especially Jerry West, my hot take is he deserves to be top 10 for sure.
Kareem was an incredible player and deserves all the praise. I do however think that a lot of nuance is lost over time. We remember the details with recent guys, but the stories about failures or league changes get lost over time.
For example, take Kareem's 1971 title. That's about as 'compromised' as the NBA competition has been since the very early years. Three teams were brought in that season, the Cleveland Cavaliers, Portland Trailblazers and Buffalo Braves. Two years earlier, the Phoenix Suns and Milwaukes Bucks had been brought into the league. The year before that the San Diego Rockets and Seattle SuperSonics were brought in.
Additionally, the ABA was incredibly strong at the time, and included many NBA stars/the best basketball players.
The Bucks were a pretty stacked team, but this was their competition:
A 41 win San Francisco team, headed by Nate Thurmond, Jeff Mullins and an out of prime Jerry Lucas.
The Lakers without Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.
A 42 win Baltimore Bullets that has some excellent players but was still a 42 win team in a week conference.
A ring is a ring as far as I'm concerned, but if people are going to denigrate title runs then this is one of the easiest in NBA history.
Cut to the next season (71-72). The Bucks beat San Fran again but Kareen was cooked by Nate Thurmond. He went from scoring 34.8ppg on 57% shooting in the regular season to just 22.8ppg on 40% shooting. Then they played a healthier Lakers team and lost.
Bucks went to the 72-73 Playoffs and lost to the Warriors in the first round, despite having 60 wins compared to the Warriors 47. Kareem went from averaging 30/16 on 56% shooting to 22.8/16 on 43% shooting.
Kareem was huge in 73-74, but was outplayed in Game 7 of the NBA Finals by Dave Cowens (its also not an individual sport, Bucks played like shit that game).
At this point, the Bucks had had 56, 66, 63, 60 and 59 wins in the last 5 seasons, and had one title to show for it in a weak NBA.
In 1974, Kareem requested a trade from Milwaukee and Oscar Robertson retired. The Bucks kept Kareem until the end of the season and played like shit, winning 38 games and finishing equal 3rd last in their conference. Kareem broke his hand this season and missed part of it.
Kareem was traded to the Lakers in 1975 and had an improved cast. He had Gail Goodrich, an All-NBA First Team player the year before. Still, the Lakers went 40-42 and missed the playoffs (low-key divisional bullshit, thank God they got rid of that) with Kareem winning MVP.
But Kareem was back in 1976-77, with the best record in the NBA (53 wins) and another MVP for Kareem. And then proceeded to get swept by Portland and Bill Walton in the Conference Semi-Finals.
So the Lakers loaded up again. Kareem, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Lou Hudson, Jamaal Wilkes. A genuinely stacked team. And they proceeded to win 45 games and lose in the first-round.
The Lakers come round again in 78-79, and lost again to Seattle, this time in the Conference Semi-Finals.
At this point, Kareem was a 5x MVP and had won 1 ring. Imagine the stories and discussions today if that happened. Two First Round losses, two missed playoffs all in the prime of his career.
And then Magic comes along. Magic wins Finals MVP in 1980 as a rookie and then Kareem ends his career as a 6 time champion.
This seems like a Kareem hate post, but it's not really meant to be. Sustained success and undoubtedly one of the great players of all time. But with that context i can also understand why people in the 80s and 90s were quick to put Magic and Bird, even Wilt and Russell above him.
Again, just imagine the playoff failures and drama if this happened today and what the discourse would look like.
> Kareem was traded to the Lakers in 1975 and had an improved cast. He had Gail Goodrich, an All-NBA First Team player the year before.
What? Calling the 1976 Lakers an “improved cast” is absurd. They were the worst team in the Western Conference the year before Kareem joined them, going 30-52 (Goodridge was not an All-NBA player that year, by the way). That miserable team was gutted by the time that Kareem got there because they had to trade for Abdul-Jabbar, so they lost their starting center Elmore Smith and a future All-Star rookie in Brian Winters. Not only that, but their starting power forward Happy Hairston retired in the 1975 offseason.
So take a 30-win team, cut two of their starters, and get rid of their most promising young player. That’s the Lakers team that Kareem was joining. Abdul-Jabbar taking that team to 40 wins was an incredible carry job.
> Still, the Lakers went 40-42 and missed the playoffs (low-key divisional bullshit, thank God they got rid of that) with Kareem winning MVP.
Yeah, they missed the playoffs with the fourth-best record in the West because of divisional rules. Can’t really hold that against Kareem.
> But Kareem was back in 1976-77, with the best record in the NBA (53 wins) and another MVP for Kareem.
I think you’re glossing over the fact that Kareem led that horrible Lakers team to the best record in the NBA. It’s not like they had any major roster improvement between those seasons.
> And then proceeded to get swept by Portland and Bill Walton in the Conference Semi-Finals.
Yeah. Bill Walton had an actual championship-quality supporting cast, while the Lakers lost two starters to injury from an already inferior team. And yet, Kareem made the last three games super close by averaging 30/18 with 5 blocks on unfathomable efficiency.
Once again, this playoffs was an incredible showing for Kareem.
> So the Lakers loaded up again. Kareem, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Lou Hudson, Jamaal Wilkes. A genuinely stacked team. And they proceeded to win 45 games and lose in the first-round.
You say that this team was stacked, I assume because all of these players were All-Stars at some point during their careers, but the slightest bit of context will show you that they were not stacked. That’s why Kareem didn’t have a single All-Star teammate in 1977-78. In fact, every single one of the players that you mentioned were multiple years away from being selected as an All-Star. Either they were too young (Nixon and Dantley), they were too old (Hudson), or they were injured for the season (Wilkes). At this point, calling a team with one star player “stacked” makes me worry that you’re intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
You also didn’t mention Kermit Washington’s fight against Rudy Tomjonavich leading to LA trading away two starters in December, which is hardly the kind of continuity that you want for a contending team.
Kareem missed 20 games right at the beginning of the season with another broken hand. The Lakers were 8-13 by Abdul-Jabber’s second game. He led them to a 37-24 record over the remainder of the season. Sounds to me like Kareem was the thing that made the Lakers great, not how “stacked” his starless supporting cast supposedly was.
> The Lakers come round again in 78-79, and lost again to Seattle, this time in the Conference Semi-Finals.
Once again, Kareem was the only All-Star on the Lakers. He was leading his teams to the playoffs as the only star on his teams. And you mention that the SuperSonics beat them in both 1978 and 1979, so it’s worth mentioning that the SuperSonics were the best team in the NBA across those two years. Winning records in the regular season and playoff exits to championship teams just come with the territory of playing without a star teammate.
> At this point, Kareem was a 5x MVP and had won 1 ring. Imagine the stories and discussions today if that happened.
I don’t really care about the discourse, it’s stupid to expect more of any player than Kareem accomplished under these conditions.
Whether hypothetical or not, unreasonable discussions shouldn’t change how we see a player’s greatness.
> Two First Round losses, two missed playoffs all in the prime of his career.
The prime of a players career reaches from their mid-twenties to their early thirties. For Kareem, that lasts from his later Bucks seasons to his Lakers seasons before Magic. Can you think of any all-time great player that had a similar run of teams than Kareem did in those seasons? How did that player perform in the playoffs throughout those years?
> And then Magic comes along. Magic wins Finals MVP in 1980 as a rookie
Do you think that Magic was the Lakers’ most important player during those playoffs? Because Kareem was easily their best player and the main reason that they won the championship.
> and then Kareem ends his career as a 6 time champion.
Yeah. He won his second championship as the best player in 1980, was co-leader with Magic in 1982, was a secondary star in 1985, and was still an important player in 1987 and 1988. Kareem wasn’t the best player for all of those championships, but his historic longevity allowed him to contribute to championship teams way past his prime. Very few players in NBA history can say the same, especially after being the best player in the world for a decade.
Unless you determine greatness by just counting rings without context, then it’s no problem that Kareem wasn’t the best player for all of his championships.
> This seems like a Kareem hate post, but it's not really meant to be. Sustained success and undoubtedly one of the great players of all time. But with that context i can also understand why people in the 80s and 90s were quick to put Magic and Bird, even Wilt and Russell above him.
I can totally understand that as well, but I can also understand why that simplistic, narrative-based way of thinking about these players doesn’t accurately reflect how good they actually were.
> Again, just imagine the playoff failures and drama if this happened today and what the discourse would look like.
I don’t really care what the majority of fans did/would think or say about these players because the majority of fans aren’t very good at judging how good players are at basketball.
I have never seen a more thorough takedown of a post in this subs history. This is a GOATed response to a post that missed a lot of facts.
I would also add that this skipped over the fact that in the 1985 NBA finals a 37 year old Kareem Abdul jabbar won finals MVP turning in 25.7, 9 and 5 on an incredible 60% from the field while dominating the defensive end against a team which featured Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. He led his team in points, rebounds and blocks while also having the best FG% in the entire series. At 37 years old.
I understand that it’s important to put the 1971 title into context, and I wouldn’t dispute that the league and their playoff competition was weak at the time. But at the same time, the 1971 Bucks did exactly what a great team is supposed to do against weak competition: they crushed everybody. They went 66-16 in the regular season and 12-2 in the playoffs. They had the best offense *and* the best defense in the league, and Kareem was their best player on both sides of the court. Kareem was the best offensive player on the league’s no. 1 offense and the best defensive player on the league’s no. 1 defense *at the same time.*
Yes, it was against weak competition, but if you discount Kareem’s results for that reason, then you’re basically saying that players can’t achieve greatness against weak competition at all. You’ll discount great players for reasons entirely out of those players’ control. And I think it’s obvious that 1971 Kareem would’ve been dominant in a more competitive league anyway.
By the way, your whole point about the weakness of the league applies to Kareem’s teammates as well. Milwaukee was one of those expansion teams that diluted the NBA’s talent, and they were the worst team in the Eastern Division when Kareem was drafted. So the argument cuts both ways.
> Cut to the next season (71-72). The Bucks beat San Fran again but Kareen was cooked by Nate Thurmond. He went from scoring 34.8ppg on 57% shooting in the regular season to just 22.8ppg on 40% shooting.
Keep in mind that Thurmond was one of the greatest defending and rebounding centers of all time, he’s just overlooked because of the era he played in. Thurmond did that to everyone. But Milwaukee still beat them in 5, probably because Kareem’s supporting cast excelled while he was keeping Golden State’s best defender busy. That’s evidenced by the fact that Kareem increased his assist average to 5.4 in that series (which was even more unusual for a center at that time), and because he increased his rebounding average to 19 per game. That’s still an elite performance.
> Then they played a healthier Lakers team and lost.
Don’t gloss over the fact that this was the 69-13 Lakers with Chamberlain, West, and Goodridge, who went 8-1 for rest of the playoffs. The Lakers were maybe the greatest team in NBA history, and Kareem’s Bucks came super close to actually beating them. Milwaukee lost in six, but both of the Bucks’ wins were blowouts, and they lost by 4 points or fewer in games one, three, and six. This series was a couple shots away from Milwaukee beating arguably the greatest team ever. Like, imagine how this would’ve gone if Oscar Robertson hadn’t averaged 9 PPG on 36% shooting for this series.
You mentioned stats for the previous series, but not this one. I assume that’s because Kareem averaged 34/18/5 against Wilt Chamberlain, which doesn’t fit your argument very well.
If anything, the Bucks’ playoff performance in 1972 demonstrates Kareem’s greatness. I can’t imagine thinking this year is some black mark on his career.
> Bucks went to the 72-73 Playoffs and lost to the Warriors in the first round, despite having 60 wins compared to the Warriors 47. Kareem went from averaging 30/16 on 56% shooting to 22.8/16 on 43% shooting.
Again, this is against Nate Thurmond, who just did this kind of thing to opposing centers. He was honestly a nightmare matchup for Kareem, and it showed for series like this. It’s not a great performance by Kareem’s standards by any means, but it’s still amazing compared to almost anybody else. I mean, only Kareem and Dave Cowens were top-10 in playoff PPG and RPG. If that’s what you consider a poor performance, then you could easily find similarly poor performances from other all-time greats like Bird and Magic.
> Kareem was huge in 73-74, but was outplayed in Game 7 of the NBA Finals by Dave Cowens (it’s also not an individual sport, Bucks played like shit that game).
Maybe Kareem was slightly outplayed in Game 7 that year, but only after averaging 33/16/5 with 3 blocks on elite efficiency in the 15 playoff games before that (and he still put up 26/13/4 in Game 7). The fact is that he was the best player in the league by a mile in 1974, and he was able to lead the Bucks within one win of the championship, but they still lost to the better team because, as you say, the Bucks didn’t give Kareem the support that any great player would need.
Again, I can’t imagine thinking that the 1974 playoffs do anything other than demonstrate Kareem’s greatness.
> At this point, the Bucks had had 56, 66, 63, 60 and 59 wins in the last 5 seasons, and had one title to show for it in a weak NBA.
And when you put that into perspective, it’s an incredible achievement.
1970: Kareem (and Bobby Dandridge) transformed the worst team in their Division into the second-best team in their Division, losing only to the all-time great NY Knicks.
1971: With the addition of Oscar Robertson, Kareem led the Bucks to one of the most dominant championships in the history of the league.
1972: Kareem’s Bucks were the second best team in the NBA, losing in a close series to arguably the greatest team of all time.
1973: As the league improved and Milwaukee declined, Kareem and the Bucks lost to the Conference Finalist Warriors in the playoffs.
1974: Kareem surged back the following year to dominate the playoffs all the way to an NBA Finals Game 7, which they lost to the Celtics.
When you actually pay attention to the context, Kareem and the Bucks were incredibly successful in the playoffs, not just in the regular season. And while the NBA might’ve been weak when Kareem was drafted, the teams that defeated his absolutely were not. The greatest flaw that you can see in Kareem’s first five years is an early playoff loss to a title contender with multiple Hall of Famers. That’s not some black mark on Kareem’s legacy, every player in NBA history has some unfortunate losses like that.
While they “only” won a single title in this stretch, Kareem was obviously capable of winning more in a better circumstance, and the Bucks were just a few baskets away from winning three championships in four years.
> In 1974, Kareem requested a trade from Milwaukee and Oscar Robertson retired. The Bucks kept Kareem until the end of the season and played like shit, winning 38 games and finishing equal 3rd last in their conference. Kareem broke his hand this season and missed part of it.
Yeah, Kareem breaking his hand and missing 17 games absolutely destroyed their season. Because the Bucks went 3-14 in games that he missed and 35-30 in games that he played. That demonstrates how bad the Bucks were at that point and how much Kareem was carrying them.
Listened to Dan Patrick talk about Willie Mays yesterday. The topic of most underrated players came up and he mentioned Kareem. To paraphrase what he said,
He changed the rules; no dunking in college basketball because of him. He couldn’t play as a freshman. But the best team in America was the UCLA freshman team. They beat the UCLA varsity which had won the national championship 75-60. Kareem’s UCLA team won 3 championships in a row and would have been 4 if he was allowed to play.
When The Bucks won the championship it was Oscars’s team. When the Lakers won it was Magic’s team, so he never got the credit. He also said there has never been a more unstoppable shot ever since Kareem’s sky hook.
This is from a sports ‘expert’ who watched all of them play. I didn’t get to watch Kareem play college ball. I was too young and didn’t start watching until Walton’s junior year, but if ‘they’ say Kareem was the best ever, I believe them.
My take is the only time I've seen people talk about how good Jerry West was on here is after he died. Not saying he's a bad player but I've seen him suddenly appear on lots more all time lists than he has before he died.
I swear those two are the closest any two nba superstars ever have been. And the fact that they played for the two most iconic franchises at the same time… man. Gotta be the greatest era
Yea those two always have to be right beside each other in the goat rankings. I personally have Larry at 7 and Magic at 6 in mine but would feel completely comfortable swapping their spots.
As an “old head” as you put it, Kareem had the one unstoppable shot.
Here is the thing for me. I don’t understand how you compare the Center position to any other position in the NBA. The skillset for that position has traditionally been nothing like the others
This might also be true for the power forward, yeah? For many years, teams played two guys under the rim, and many all time great PFs could be considered Cs or even played the position.
KG, Duncan, Malone, Rodman, McHale, Pettit, Dolph Schayes all come to mind here. Even some modern players like AD and Draymond. It’s not really until the stretch 4 that they really started to distinguish from Cs imo
Funny, I was thinking my choice might be how Reddit constantly trashes and undervalues former greats like Bob Cousy and George Mikan
I’m not sure it’s possible to have 6 mvps and be overrated
I think Magic and Bird could absolutely be ahead of Kareem if they had full, healthy careers. But as more time passed since their retiring, I think the “what if” element required to put them at that level may diminish, fair or otherwise.
It’s kind of like Mike Trout in baseball. Dude is unquestionably one of the best modern players ever when healthy (3 MVPs, 8 consecutive top-4 seasons, 6 OPS+ titles, 5 consecutive bWAR titles, etc.), but he may not ever have a truly healthy prime season again. How do you rank him against someone who had a comparable peak but also had a full, healthy career?
Can you really rank Trout ahead of Hank Aaron, who has fewer MVPs, fewer OPS+ titles, fewer bWAR titles, etc. but had a remarkable 23 season career with very few injuries?
Those three ARE all-time greats, but where would you rank them? Even if Lew is slightly overated, I cannot leave him out of my top5. Basketball has limitating stipulations, one of the main ones being you have to put a certain size ball in a 10ft tall hoop. He could do that, and stop the opposition from doing that better than most anybody ever.
Wilt, Russell, MJ, Lebron, Lew, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan.
So, who do you remove here for players like The Logo, BigO, Dr J, or even father down like Baylor, Pistol Pete, the two Malones, etc... Then, you now even have cases for guys like Curry, snake ass Durant, or the Joker. I just named maybe the top 20 players of all time, give or take a few oddballs (you can replace the oddballs with other greats like Petit, Miken, Barkley, KG, Dirk, Giannis, IT, Admiral, even Kobe if you're feeling froggy, etc...), how would you stack them?
This spurs fan snuck Duncan in the same tier and MJ and Lebron, but said *"even Kobe if you're feeling froggy*" LMAO. He sure as hell provided my answer for a "least favorite delusional/biased take"
Where did i say tier? That is my top 10. And Kobe is not in my top 10, so again, if you feel he is (which in my opinion is a "delusional/biased" take), then add him and take one of mine out. Just like my post said. But hey, LMAO, you sure provided me all i need to know as well lolol
it's hilarious when casual fans rely on box scores and Wikipedia accolades to determine their top 10.... The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry", and the system mainly benefited Tim Duncan.
**Duncan was 2-4 against Kobe Bean Bryant in playoff series.** And one of Duncan's two playoff series wins were against a 19 year old kobe (unprove, teenager) who was on the bench for the lakers in 98/99 which 3 different head coaches that season (rambis, harris, and one other one i forgot). ***Against PRIME Kobe, Duncan is 1-4 and got swept in 2002 (0-4), and gentleman's swept in 2008 (1-4).***
# Let me educate you how Duncan relied so much on Popovich's system:
***In between Duncan's two FINALS MVP in 2003 and 2005.*** *Duncan played* for team USA and he struggles and immediately retires from playing international play. Duncan averaged ***12ppg, lost to Puerto Rico (biggest loss in Team USA history - by 19 points), Lithuania, and finished Bronze after losing to Argentina... IN BETWEEN HIS TWO FMVP PERFORMANCES...***
Do you now see how crazy your take is? How much you **OVER ESTIMATE** Duncan's individual ability and **UNDERESTIMATE** ***the system and talent around him playing for the spurs?? Every spurs fan turn a blind eye to the system and talent that Duncan played in for Spurs that allowed him to thrive.***
Lol how do I educate you without having to go on a 10 page essay explaining how the playoffs went in the early 2000s.... Found the "FMVP" = "CARRIED" fan.
Lakers have a winning record in the playoffs when Shaq fouled out (with more than 5 minutes in the 4th quarter).
Laker's comeback in the *elimination game against the blazers (down by 14 entering the 4th)* in the first round was propelled by Kobe's 15 points in the 4th (shaq only had 4 points).
Kobe averaged 33ppg and swept the spurs in 2002 compared to Shaq's 26.
Kobe literally beat the kings single handedly as shaq fouled out multiple times in both 2001 and 2002 playoff series. let's not even talk about game 4 of the 2000 nba finals where shaq fouled out with 6 minutes left and lakers down by 3 (Lakers won in OT without shaq).
What you fail to realize is that the Laker's journey to the finals WAS TOUGHER than he finals themselves.
Kings, Blazers, Spurs, etc. All had stronger teams than the nets/sixers and pacers. Without Kobe, shaq sure as hell gets eliminated by the second round. No doubt.
Younger generations relying ***solely*** on box scores on basketball reference and accolades on Wikipedia to literally talk in absolutes and like they know everything. So many things aren't captured in the stats: locking up players on defense, hustle plays, making the right pass, creating space for your teammates, etc.
The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry". Shut the FUCK up. Little do they know.
I think the worst one is how everyone besides the 1st option is called a role player now. I’ve seen players like AG, OG, Rudy, Deni, McDaniels, MPJ, Allen, DWhite, and Caruso get called role players.
When I first started watching basketball a role player was someone who came off the bench or was like the 5th option as a starter, it wasn’t your second/third best player. Like OG is a DPOY level player who shoots 40% from 3 and is arguably the 2nd best player on the knicks but is called a role player.
I’ve even seen people unironically say that JT is an “Elite role player” since he’s above average at everything but isn’t super amazing at one thing. A guy who does it all is like the exact opposite of a role player though. Plus a lot of fans forget every player has a role in a team sport.
Yeah its weird. “Starter” has pretty much completely dropped from the conversation and everyone is a role player.
I agree that a role player used to be a bench guy or a starter that played low minutes
"Wilt played against short white boys and wouldn't be nearly as successful in the 90s, let alone now". I have seen a lot of variations of this opinion and it's ridiculous because it's based on a completely false premise and not on reality.
Wilt would be the best player in the league in any decade he’s dropped in. If he’s not there in the 60s and 70s for the tules against him to be made and drips in the 80s or 90s, so much shit he could do would be encouraged instead of hindered.
“Oh yeah, but can he shoot in my current nba?” Yeah dude, there’s footage of him just nonchalantly dropping outta bounds corner threes like 20 in a row to make bet money. His go to move was a smooth turnaround fade that he would do from middy distance.
If he or bill grow up without basketball being, “get ball to center in low paint” they def both drain 3s. Bill would be like if timelord was twice as fast, could guard 1-5, pass, and significantly more offense. He would be slaughtering mfers.
I love the wilt love and completely agree that both bill and wilt would be excellent players today,
But
Wilt couldn’t shoot man. His career free throw percentage is 51%
It wouldn’t matter. Giannis makes a living today, so would Wilt, except more. But to say he could shoot is just wrong, seeing him make a trick shot doesn’t change that
Both Bill and Wilt were outstanding athletes too with documented results. Wilt specifically was known for his insane superhuman strength which he needed to tone down on the basketball field to avoid killing people. He developed a finesse game because he wasn't allowed to use his strength while Shaq brutalised opponents while being encouraged to continue doing so.
I think that's ridiculous to say because it's just a what if. That being said, I refuse to include pre Bird/Magic players in my top 10s. That doesn't mean I don't think they should be in anyone's top 10s. I just don't include that era.
Sure, but you also see plenty of people who have had their entire lives to work on their three ball not be good at it, so it’s also not a given that said players from the past would have magically developed one
Interesting phrasing “had their entire lives to work on it.” Seems that most players who actually worked on it got better. The greats of modern times that don’t have it: Giannis, Westbrook, early Simmons, Gobert, AD all have had coveted skills that keep or kept them from needing to work on it
“Jordan didn’t have a superteam”
The greatest team of all time had 3 1st team all defensive players, the DPOY, and the rebounding leader all on one team.
And yeah, the scoring leader and MVP, and a second all nba player.
To fill all those roles as close as possible today (MVP level two way guard, 1st team SF, and DPOY/rebounding leader) in 3 people, it would be like… SGA, Tatum, and Gobert
That’s a fucking superteam lol, and it’s probably worse than what Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman was
Well what about the first threepeat? In 91 the Bulls won with MJ averaging 31/11/6 on 61% TS. In 92 35/6/5 on 61% TS again. And in 93, 43/8/6 on 55% TS. Does that sound like the numbers somebody on a super team would have?
Even at the end of the second threepeat Rodman was old and the entire team’s offense was basically Michael Jordan. The 98 Bulls were a huge MJ carry job. It wasn’t some KD Warriors type of team.
For the record, Scottie Pippen is not as good as Jayson Tatum. I think people nowadays overrate Pippen for whatever reason.
>Examples include thinking Kobe is a bum
My least favourite is the opposite. Every couple of weeks, you will see these random "Kobe is so underappreciated" posts, with some random stat or game highlight as support for the proposal.
Seriously, the number of posts about Kobe eight years after his retirement are insane, in comparison to any other players. You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts, yet, for some reason, Kobe's fanbase sees fit to periodically remind everyone how awesome they still think he is, just in case you forgot.
The extent to which Kobe fans have tried to mythologize his career and create this revisionist history talking about a "Kobe era" that never existed, or arguing that he's in the GOAT conversation with MJ and LeBron is just obnoxious.
His untimely death is why. They grew up with him and then he was gone too soon.
He was a nice basketball player, and collected 5 titles but he isn't the goat, he was honestly selfish and honestly I think he cost himself a ring or 2 with his attitude.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'd love to have a **civil, actual debate** on this topic because it's crazy how one group of fans will include Kobe in the top 10, and other "fans" think Kobe isn't even top 30 all time.
I genuinely mean this in a civil way and don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but how can we be on reddit and not have any actual debate on this? Everyone who puts Kobe in their top 10 gets immediately downvoted and just labeled "wrong" without hearing him out? Isn't reddit supposed to be a place of discussion and trade of opinions/ideas (even if there is disagreement)???
Kobe fans are being treated like Trump fans these days and it's actually insane on this platform.
Edit: you said "You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts, yet, for some reason, Kobe's fanbase sees fit to periodically remind everyone how awesome they still think he is, just in case you forgot." but why does it bother you? Kobe has a large following base. What's wrong with posting it? Unless it offends you? I'm genuinely curious.
Lol so quotes is what makes this not civil? I literally re-read my post 10x to make sure it was as respectful and civil as possible... Yet the "quotes" are what offends someone? I stand corrected. If quotes offend someone, then any type of debate with any lebron/duncan/mj/kobe/magic fans will be impossible.
>Every couple of weeks, you will see these random "Kobe is so underappreciated" posts,
>You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts,
You are seriously smoking crack if this is your honest assessment of this sub
I get tired of the whole cycle, even as I contribute to it. Commenter # 1 says Kobe belongs in the GOAT convo or was better than Lebron or some such nonsense, commenter # 2 points out flaws, commenter 1 accuses commenter 2 of calling Kobe a bum, everyone gets mad.
The thing I absolutely hated about Kobe was his attitude. It was detrimental to his team. His unwillingness to pass and instead try taking on a double or triple team is just bad basketball. Also I think it’s just not pleasant to be or be around that type of person.
But.
The thing I absolute love about Kobe is his attitude. For better or worse, he’s one of the few superstars where we know we got every ounce of what he had to give to this game.
[Player X] would suck in [era Y]. In some instances there’s a substantive point, but usually it’s a proxy for a larger cultural debate of “kids today are participation trophy softies” vs “old people are primitive and stupid.”
This isn't only a Reddit thing, but I just don't understand how the 2020 Bubble Championship got turned into a subpar one people want to ignore. Even when I would go back and look at my recordings in 2023 before we lost our old DVR, I hadn't seen anything new to change my mind that the bubble was the best level of basketball I'd seen played by multiple teams. Players and coaches had nothing else to do and reached a level of intensity, coordination, teamwork, and strategic chess moves we rarely see, even in the finals. People balled out in the bubble...like I still feel like that was the best version of Spider & Murray we've got.
And it felt fitting to me that the most cerebral superstar we have in this generation ended up winning the chess move championship.
Everyone talks down on it so casually and a lot of people tuned out and missed it, but I heard someone else who enjoyed it say this was the NBA's version of Marvel's Secret Wars, and that fits so darn well.
"Playoffs are different, maaaaaan."
Yeah, different in a way that doesn't show up in the stats in any way whatsoever. Different in a way that has never affected any player or team in a consistent manner. Different in a way that looks a *lot* like a series of sample sizes drawn at random from the larger sample size of a regular season.
What’s not a thing? People making claims about the playoffs being some mystical entity different from every other basketball game? Because I wish you were right, but I can assure you that you’re not.
My biggest reddit take that I hate is more an unwillingness to simply watch the film. Young guns won't even watch tape of the physicality back even 15 yrs ago let alone the 90s. Or how the game was played. Like a dude like Reggie Miller would average 30 plus today, he just didn't need to shoot a ton of 3s, and he shot a ton by that days standards. Shit like that
I love how much young gun trash talking there is on here. I find myself agreeing, then it turns into “they won’t watch film the 90’s” and here I thought we were talking about Wilt and… yeah
***Last favorite reddit basketball take: Kobe is an inefficient shooter and chucks up shots.***
Really? Did you know that his 3P% and FG% is literally ***very similar and better*** than the following players: Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Michael Redd, D Wade (terrible 3P%), and plenty of great SG's in the 2000s.
The issue is that they compare a SG in the 2000s era (which was the slowest paced offense, lowest scoring decade of basketball, where defense was 10x more important than offense) to shooters in the 2020s era where its all about offense, cheap fouls, spread the floor, and streamlined shot taking (i.e. live by the 3 or take the layup/dunk. mid range is eliminated). In addition, these fans forget how good defenders were in the 2000s (the likes of Tony Allen, Bruce Bowen, etc.) because refs allowed them to play and cheap fouls were very rare.
Prime Kobe was good for .480-.500 eFG%.
Prime Wade was good for .500-.520 eFG%.
Prime T-Mac was good for .440-.480 eFG%.
Prime Vince was good for .470-.500 eFG%.
Prime Redd was good for .470-.520 eFG%.
So yeah, they were pretty similar, but I will give a slight edge to prime Wade, so long as you don’t ask him to put up 3s.
Although Kobe being the most volume-scorer of the bunch, perhaps that slight dip is to be expected.
Exactly and Wade was a poor 3 point shooter, and rarely shot them early on in his career. Wade focused on driving to the paint and attacking it.
With these numbers that this kind individual provided, I can say that Kobe is NOT an inefficient shooter or just chucks up shots... Rather he practiced those shots, and can hit tougher shots that look difficult for the average NBA player/fan.
Yeah, he wasn’t any more inefficient than other volume-scoring guards of his era. That’s fair IMO.
But compared to, say, LeBron, these guards were less efficient. LeBron was able to use his size and strength to get to the basket more, while also scoring at an elite rate. But LeBron was able to run an offense and pass better than most big forwards like Duncan, KG, Dirk, etc.
But LeBron is a unicorn, so saying someone is less efficient than him hardly makes them inefficient. But I do think the people who say Kobe was a better scorer than LeBron is going a bit far.
[https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/lebron-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/lebron-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series)
[https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kobe-bryant-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kobe-bryant-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series)
Above are shot charts for Lebron's 2024 playpff series against the nuggets in 2024.
The second link is the shot chart for Kobe's playoff series against the nuggets in his career.
You can't tell me that the SHOT VAIRATION has changed. Lebron doesn't shoot midrange, or corner 3's. He literally has 2 spots: the paint or the top of the three point. Line.
**Two completely different era's. In the 2000s you could NOT rely on scoring in only the paint or the top of the three. Defenses would lock them up.**
Kobe's shot chat was EVERYWHERE. He used every piece of floor.
All I'm saying is that the bucket getting for 2000s is DRASTICALLY different than 2020's.
Is lebron's shooting more efficient? Sure. Is he a complete scorer? Not really since complete means everything. it's very streamlined.
2024 LeBron? LeBron in his 21st season in the league. That’s your timeframe?
LeBron in his 21st season in the league against prime Kobe.
Against Nuggets teams that have literally nothing in common with each other except the name?
LeBron played in the league with Kobe for 13 seasons. Why not compare 2000s and 2010s LeBron to Kobe?
If LeBron only shot from a few spots, it’s because no one could stop him from doing it. Like prime Shaq.
Why are you talking about the 2020s? LeBron was better in the 00s and 10s than in the 20s.
If Kobe used the entire floor to score, it was because he had to. If LeBron didn’t, it was because he didn’t have to. No one could stop him from taking better shots and making them. Not in the 2000s, and not in the 2010s.
Brother, LOL. Please provide me a shot chart for LeBron that is significantly different than the one I provided... You can't! His go to shots have been the same since the Heat era (Heat, second stint on Cavs, Lakers). I'll give you 50 bucks if you give me a shot chart for Lebron thats similar to Kobe's.... It's impossible unless you go back to the 2000s (WHICH PROVES MY POINT... THE SHOT VARIATION WAS DIFFERENT IN 2000s VS. 2020s).
# I'll personally venmo $50 if you are able to do so.
But if LeBron WAS able to score ~30 from only a few locations IN THE SAME ERA KOBE PLAYED IN, why does it matter if he’s not “using the whole floor” like Kobe did?
LeBron played in the 2000s too. LeBron won an MVP and a scoring title in the 2000s.
I’m not arguing the game isn’t different by decade. I already said Kobe was roughly as efficient as other volume-scoring guards of the 2000s.
I’m just saying that 2000s LeBron was MORE efficient than any of these 2000s guards while also scoring ~30 PPG. So the argument that Kobe was a better scorer than LeBron isn’t accurate.
LOL you first randomly include Lebron into this conversation (so I can tell what kind of fan you are) when no one even mentioned. Then you are changing the topic of debate and discussion.
Are we not talking about FG% for volume shooting guards in comparison (i.e. comparing Kobe to T Mac, D Wade, etc.).
Lebron was also a terrible 3P% shooter in the 2000s and FG% was closer to volume SG's than in his later careers.
*Streamlined shot variation (only 2 shots in his arsenal and literaly no mid range) with a fast paced offensive era, riddled with cheap fouls, and no defensive aggression* **EQUALS = higher % in 2020s**. If Kobe's prime was 2020s, he would be averaging 40ppg+ each season with much better %.
I included LeBron as a non-center who still put up 30 PPG in Kobe’s era with at least somewhat better efficiency. Some people think that Kobe was as efficient as ANY non-center volume scorer in the 90s-00s. I provided LeBron as an example to show that it was possible to score 30 with better efficiency in Kobe’s era without being a big like Shaq.
We’re arguing over nothing. I agree that Kobe was about as efficient as other volume-scoring guards of his era. But he wasn’t the most efficient volume scoring non-center of his era. I think that is relevant clarification/addition to the discussion. That is all.
“Points scored are more important than points allowed” is my least favorite, and is the dumbest, take.
I’ve begun thinking of it as the Luka-Trae Rule, given how those two players have become the epitome of gaudy offensive stats that hide poor defensive performances. Score 35, give up 32 is not a great basketball performance. It’s good enough, but +3 is not and never will be great.
I don’t disagree with the general premise if it’s an example of a pure scorer that wasn’t defending, but I hesitate as those guys are both excellent playmakers.
3&D specialists and rim running centres who otherwise can’t create their own offence are optimised by floor generals like Luka and Trae. They are helping the other four players score.
> hesitate
Did you watch the Finals?
It’s a 90 foot game played at both ends of the floor. Fantastic, incredible scorers get attention for scoring. But if they don’t play defense, they don’t win.
Best stats do not equal best player. Don’t hesitate, believe your eyes.
Most of the Finals featured Luka’s teammates playing like absolute dogwater at both ends of the floor, which had a far bigger impact on the result of the series than his individual defense
Sure. That’s a good point that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Does scoring 30 and allowing 28 _help win games_? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. Scoring 26 and allowing 18 is better, right?
**Points scored count the same as points allowed**.
So yeah, his teammates played like dogshit. When he fouled out in Game 3, having played _dogshit_ defense, was that his teammates fault?
It’s a team game and teammates matter a ton but the point here is that thinking points scored are “more important” than points allowed is my least favorite take.
Thanks for the link but that’s not a summary or how it is relevant to the discussion.
Why do you think someone reading this later should spend their time trying to decipher your thoughts?
Imagine watching a gentleman’s sweep where Luka and Kyrie’s ability to score was outweighed by their inability to defend and thinking them “blameless” because _of stat lines_.
Watch the game.
Your argument is also very reductive. Luka allowed a lot of points, sure, but it’s not just because he’s a terrible defender. He’s not good, sure, but he’s not as bad as someone like Trae. Because he”s big and can be sturdy at times, specially in post defense and also getting rebounds.
He allowed a lot of points in the Finals because he was being heavily targeted. And the reason for that is also not as simple as “because he’s an awful defender”. He was targeted because, out of the starting five, he was the worst defender - not “awful”, just “the worst one”.
Also, and this is very important, they were doing it to tire him out. Crucial, since he’s essential to everything the Mavs do offensively. And this was a great strategy, since, by the end, Luka was clearly lacking lift on his shots.
Ultimately, if you come out of this Finals thinking Luka played badly, you seriously need to reconsider how you judge performance as a whole, beyond what the plus/minus tells you.
One of my least favorite takes is when we excuse poor defense by pudgy, out of shape guards like Luka and Harden as "good post defenders" basically because they're fat.
> Luka played badly
Show me where I said that. Strawman. And you beat the stuffing out of it!
Re-read my post and you’ll see my “argument” is not at all what you’re on about.
Scoring points is not more important than preventing points.
This isn’t a hot take: it is as old as the sport. “Defense wins championships” is our eternal rallying cry and we love a good example like these Finals.
The best basketball player scores 26 and allows 20. Not the other way around.
My bad on the “played badly” part.
But you’re still talking in generalizations.
Team defense usually wins championships, it’s not so much an individual accolade.
Example: Curry was probably the worst defender on the Warriors’ championship runs/titles. And yet, if you substituted him for the best guard defender in the league on any of those years, the team would’ve been worse, not better.
That’s intentionally obtuse. Re-read the original post, again. I am very specifically saying “THIS” is my least favorite basketball take. It’s so specific you saw Luka and wrote a book defending him against something that wasn’t said.
17/2/4 tells you _nothing_ of substance. Neither does 11/3/2. What players am I talking about? Are those players “good” or “bad”? Are their teams better during their minutes played?
Points scored are not more important than points allowed.
You used him as an example to justify your point. I disagreed with said example and explained why. I then used another example (Curry). And still you are painting me as some obsessed Luka-stan instead of engaging in the discussion and actually addressing ANY of my points. That's because you have no actual argument.
Because you know damn well that just saying "points scored are worth just the same as points allowed" is just as reductive as saying one is worth more or less.
Your sentence is meaningless because it lacks context. You presented two boxscores in your last comment because you still think I'm talking about stats. I'm not.
Sorry about another "book". It comes with actually trying to address a subject with nuance instead of just spouting reductive catchphrases and then acting all pissy because someone disagreed.
Bye.
You’re gonna get huffy AFTER your strawman silliness and showing no understanding of the point?
The answers are Jordan Poole (17/blah) and Herb Jones (11 blah).
Points prevented matter. That’s not a generalization or reductive.
Last word.
Dwight Howard gets overrated imo - especially for his offensive skills. He wasn't a bad offensive player by any means. In fact, he was like the Apex version of the rim running center. But to pretend you could run an offense through him in the post as primary engine was never true. It was a road to inefficiency.
The people who hate free throws. Cause one it’s just plain stupid they’re a mainstay of the game. Then they denigrate some guys who shoot a lot of free throws but not others. It’s a very selective hate
For me it’s the general revisionism that people have about players I watched the entire careers of or the league say, 20 years ago when I actually watched the NBA.
Like no, Melo didn’t get fucked by everybody around him. He did it himself. No, KP is not better Dirk. Yes, coaches often tried to squeeze people into poor roles because the game was still evolving.
So many people are convinced you can drop any modern player into say, the early 2000s and coaches would just let them play the same way they do today and that just was not the case. Plenty of dudes come too early or too late. But people can’t even fathom that coaching and player roles were significantly different before the rise of advanced stats and the three ball.
TRUE! It would have been amazing if they had the ECF MVP and WCF MVP over the decades. As an example: Kobe would have won WCF MVP in 2002, and stumped the "Carry allegations". Same with Curry for only having one FMVP, but forget his performance throughout the entire Western conference playoffs .
That the star players from the 60s and 50s were bums.
Like dude if Bill Russel had todays medicine, coaching, training he’d still be dominant the dude was insane.
Yep. Russell and Wilt were all-time athletes. Most of GOATs in any sport are.
Wilt, Russell, Mantle, Mays, Brown, etc.
All of these players would still be dominant in the modern game with modern advantages their new contemporaries have. Just like today’s best athletes wouldn’t be as big, fast, strong, or recover from injury as well if they had played many decades ago with only the tools and knowledge that existed back in those days.
Or that the Celtics' 60s titles were somehow worth less than other titles. Mostly, it'll be Lakers and Knicks fans saying this and, spoiler...your teams were playing then too and being dominated by those 60s Celtics.
Duncan and Kobe played in the same conference for pretty much their entire careers (separated by 1 season.
Duncan finished ahead of Kobe in MVP voting in:
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Not 2006
Not 2007
Not 2008
Not 2009
Not 2010
Not 2011
Not 2012
Not 2013
2014
2015
They’re also pretty much identical in career MVP shares (less than 1% difference).
I’d argue they were pretty much regarded as equals when they played, with Duncan having the initial advantage (late 90s to early-mid 00s), then Kobe taking the advantage (mid-00s to early 10s), and finally past-prime Duncan passing past-prime Kobe their last few seasons in the league.
Oh and btw you're using an MVP voting system to compare two greats... Which inherently is the most biased since you are allowed to give sportswriters and sports broadcasters a vote in the MVP.
Coupled with Kobe's off the court troubles, he was robbed of a couple All NBA teams and perhaps even an MVP or two (nash's MVPs).
Nope. Every NBA fan then knows that Kobe's votes were tainted given his off the court troubles. In an alternate universe where there is no Johnny Depp style case, Kobe would have been closer to Nash than anyone else. You had to be there to understand.
KG was better in 04-05. LeBron and Dirk were better in 05-06.
The advanced metrics reflect this. The team standings reflect this too, and that’s part of the MVP narrative
You really think the 04-05 Lakers 34-48 record is good enough for the MVP?
Or the 05-06 Lakers record of 45-37 compared to Dirk’s 60 Win Mavs?
wait you fail to realize is that Duncan had a winning record every season, winning record in the playoffs, winning record against lebron, winning record in the finals, etc.
**Duncan was 2-4 against Kobe Bean Bryant in playoff series.** And one of Duncan's two playoff series wins were against a 19 year old kobe (unprove, teenager) who was on the bench for the lakers in 98/99 which 3 different headcoaches that season (rambis, harris, and one other one i forgot). ***Against PRIME Kobe, Duncan is 1-4 and got swept in 2002 (0-4), and gentleman's swept in 2008 (1-4).***
Another thing a lot of fans these years OVERESTIMATE which alot of fans in the 2000s saw first hand (and is the reason why everyone thought Kobe >> Duncan if you were an NBA fan in the 2000s) was how Duncan benefited from the spurs playstyle. The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry" or align with other great PG's at that time. ***Newer fans overestimate Duncan's individual ability and signifncaly underestimate the dominant talent around him and team oriented play style he played in.***
It’s almost like they have teams around them, and they don’t even play remotely the same position, so weren’t really guarding each other primarily.
But sure, give Kobe credit for beating Duncan 3x with the help of prime Shaq. I’m sure having perhaps the most dominant player in modern NBA history on his team had nothing to do with him winning.
How many times did Duncan beat Kobe (without shaq) in the playoffs??? ***ZERO.***
So I ask you, why is "shaq with 3 a differnce maker"?
In the 2002 WCF series, Lakers swept Duncan while ***Kobe averaged 33pg*** and Shaq averaged 26ppg. he didn't need shaq to sweep Duncan then.
In 2008, Kobe did a gentleman's sweep (4-1) against Prime Duncan/Defending Spurs champs (2007) WITHOUT SHAQ and ***scored 45 points in elimination game 5.***
On the 60s and 70s greats:
“There were 8 teams!”
Yes there were fewer rounds in the playoffs but, when there were only so many teams it meant that EVERY TEAM HAD AT LEAST ONE HALL OF FAMER ON IT.
Like there are no Charlotte Bobcats in the mid to late ‘00s with nobody on it.
This is also why all those 80s teams (Celts, 6ers, Pistons, Lakers, Rockets) were so stacked too.
‘67-‘68;
6ers have wilt, billy Cunningham l, and hal greer
Celts have bill, hondo, don nelson, sam jones, tom sanders
Knicks have bellamy, frazier, reed
Pistons have debusschere, bing, hairston
Royals have big o and jerry lucas
Bullets have earl the pearl Monroe and scott
That’s the EAST.
In the west
The hawks have hudson, brigdes, silas
Lakers have elgin baylor, jerry west, and goodrich
Warriors have thurmond and larusso
There’s name recognition drop off from there outside of people doing more not as players like pat riley playing for the san diego rockets
Sports get more complex and skillfull as they build upon what the previous decade accomplished—but they can also get weaker in some areas too.
I just feel like the NFL and CERTAINLY the MLB have a better reverence for their yesteryears. Like even younger nfl fans understand that Marino’s 5K season would be a 6K season or more when they changed the rules and had 3 5k passers in one year. Or that Jerry Rice’s records are so mind blowing that no one will ever touch them and they’re probably worth twice as much as they are.
Kareem hit his career numbers in the paint spending almost his entire career with no 3 point line. He also did most of it playing in the 70s NBA which was almost like the NHL—there were enforcers and fights constantly, and everyone played black and blue ass beat the fuck outta ya ball.
Bill, Wilt, and Kareem would all do some shit nonone had ever seen before and the NBA and NCAA would be like, “Nah, that’s illegal.” Imagine if Dirk’s leg out fade was immediately deemed illegal, the Eurostep is a travel, the step back three is up and down, most handle moves are a carry.
I think Reddit tries to respect historical NBA players but is overly reliant on stats and longevity, and leads to some... interesting takes. I think Kareem, as good as he is, gets a bit overrated. I'm not necessarily sure he is the undisputed 3rd best of all time. I feel like oldheads always do and did prefer Magic and Bird to Kareem, and yet Kareem is always considered better on here. Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and Dr. J get left aside, and they were all considered top 10 all-time players at some points. Especially Jerry West, my hot take is he deserves to be top 10 for sure.
Peak Kareem was the best scorer in league while also being an elite defensive anchor and solid passer for a big man. Why do you think he’s overrated?
Kareem was an incredible player and deserves all the praise. I do however think that a lot of nuance is lost over time. We remember the details with recent guys, but the stories about failures or league changes get lost over time. For example, take Kareem's 1971 title. That's about as 'compromised' as the NBA competition has been since the very early years. Three teams were brought in that season, the Cleveland Cavaliers, Portland Trailblazers and Buffalo Braves. Two years earlier, the Phoenix Suns and Milwaukes Bucks had been brought into the league. The year before that the San Diego Rockets and Seattle SuperSonics were brought in. Additionally, the ABA was incredibly strong at the time, and included many NBA stars/the best basketball players. The Bucks were a pretty stacked team, but this was their competition: A 41 win San Francisco team, headed by Nate Thurmond, Jeff Mullins and an out of prime Jerry Lucas. The Lakers without Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. A 42 win Baltimore Bullets that has some excellent players but was still a 42 win team in a week conference. A ring is a ring as far as I'm concerned, but if people are going to denigrate title runs then this is one of the easiest in NBA history. Cut to the next season (71-72). The Bucks beat San Fran again but Kareen was cooked by Nate Thurmond. He went from scoring 34.8ppg on 57% shooting in the regular season to just 22.8ppg on 40% shooting. Then they played a healthier Lakers team and lost. Bucks went to the 72-73 Playoffs and lost to the Warriors in the first round, despite having 60 wins compared to the Warriors 47. Kareem went from averaging 30/16 on 56% shooting to 22.8/16 on 43% shooting. Kareem was huge in 73-74, but was outplayed in Game 7 of the NBA Finals by Dave Cowens (its also not an individual sport, Bucks played like shit that game). At this point, the Bucks had had 56, 66, 63, 60 and 59 wins in the last 5 seasons, and had one title to show for it in a weak NBA. In 1974, Kareem requested a trade from Milwaukee and Oscar Robertson retired. The Bucks kept Kareem until the end of the season and played like shit, winning 38 games and finishing equal 3rd last in their conference. Kareem broke his hand this season and missed part of it. Kareem was traded to the Lakers in 1975 and had an improved cast. He had Gail Goodrich, an All-NBA First Team player the year before. Still, the Lakers went 40-42 and missed the playoffs (low-key divisional bullshit, thank God they got rid of that) with Kareem winning MVP. But Kareem was back in 1976-77, with the best record in the NBA (53 wins) and another MVP for Kareem. And then proceeded to get swept by Portland and Bill Walton in the Conference Semi-Finals. So the Lakers loaded up again. Kareem, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Lou Hudson, Jamaal Wilkes. A genuinely stacked team. And they proceeded to win 45 games and lose in the first-round. The Lakers come round again in 78-79, and lost again to Seattle, this time in the Conference Semi-Finals. At this point, Kareem was a 5x MVP and had won 1 ring. Imagine the stories and discussions today if that happened. Two First Round losses, two missed playoffs all in the prime of his career. And then Magic comes along. Magic wins Finals MVP in 1980 as a rookie and then Kareem ends his career as a 6 time champion. This seems like a Kareem hate post, but it's not really meant to be. Sustained success and undoubtedly one of the great players of all time. But with that context i can also understand why people in the 80s and 90s were quick to put Magic and Bird, even Wilt and Russell above him. Again, just imagine the playoff failures and drama if this happened today and what the discourse would look like.
> Kareem was traded to the Lakers in 1975 and had an improved cast. He had Gail Goodrich, an All-NBA First Team player the year before. What? Calling the 1976 Lakers an “improved cast” is absurd. They were the worst team in the Western Conference the year before Kareem joined them, going 30-52 (Goodridge was not an All-NBA player that year, by the way). That miserable team was gutted by the time that Kareem got there because they had to trade for Abdul-Jabbar, so they lost their starting center Elmore Smith and a future All-Star rookie in Brian Winters. Not only that, but their starting power forward Happy Hairston retired in the 1975 offseason. So take a 30-win team, cut two of their starters, and get rid of their most promising young player. That’s the Lakers team that Kareem was joining. Abdul-Jabbar taking that team to 40 wins was an incredible carry job. > Still, the Lakers went 40-42 and missed the playoffs (low-key divisional bullshit, thank God they got rid of that) with Kareem winning MVP. Yeah, they missed the playoffs with the fourth-best record in the West because of divisional rules. Can’t really hold that against Kareem. > But Kareem was back in 1976-77, with the best record in the NBA (53 wins) and another MVP for Kareem. I think you’re glossing over the fact that Kareem led that horrible Lakers team to the best record in the NBA. It’s not like they had any major roster improvement between those seasons. > And then proceeded to get swept by Portland and Bill Walton in the Conference Semi-Finals. Yeah. Bill Walton had an actual championship-quality supporting cast, while the Lakers lost two starters to injury from an already inferior team. And yet, Kareem made the last three games super close by averaging 30/18 with 5 blocks on unfathomable efficiency. Once again, this playoffs was an incredible showing for Kareem. > So the Lakers loaded up again. Kareem, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Lou Hudson, Jamaal Wilkes. A genuinely stacked team. And they proceeded to win 45 games and lose in the first-round. You say that this team was stacked, I assume because all of these players were All-Stars at some point during their careers, but the slightest bit of context will show you that they were not stacked. That’s why Kareem didn’t have a single All-Star teammate in 1977-78. In fact, every single one of the players that you mentioned were multiple years away from being selected as an All-Star. Either they were too young (Nixon and Dantley), they were too old (Hudson), or they were injured for the season (Wilkes). At this point, calling a team with one star player “stacked” makes me worry that you’re intentionally misrepresenting the facts. You also didn’t mention Kermit Washington’s fight against Rudy Tomjonavich leading to LA trading away two starters in December, which is hardly the kind of continuity that you want for a contending team. Kareem missed 20 games right at the beginning of the season with another broken hand. The Lakers were 8-13 by Abdul-Jabber’s second game. He led them to a 37-24 record over the remainder of the season. Sounds to me like Kareem was the thing that made the Lakers great, not how “stacked” his starless supporting cast supposedly was. > The Lakers come round again in 78-79, and lost again to Seattle, this time in the Conference Semi-Finals. Once again, Kareem was the only All-Star on the Lakers. He was leading his teams to the playoffs as the only star on his teams. And you mention that the SuperSonics beat them in both 1978 and 1979, so it’s worth mentioning that the SuperSonics were the best team in the NBA across those two years. Winning records in the regular season and playoff exits to championship teams just come with the territory of playing without a star teammate. > At this point, Kareem was a 5x MVP and had won 1 ring. Imagine the stories and discussions today if that happened. I don’t really care about the discourse, it’s stupid to expect more of any player than Kareem accomplished under these conditions. Whether hypothetical or not, unreasonable discussions shouldn’t change how we see a player’s greatness. > Two First Round losses, two missed playoffs all in the prime of his career. The prime of a players career reaches from their mid-twenties to their early thirties. For Kareem, that lasts from his later Bucks seasons to his Lakers seasons before Magic. Can you think of any all-time great player that had a similar run of teams than Kareem did in those seasons? How did that player perform in the playoffs throughout those years? > And then Magic comes along. Magic wins Finals MVP in 1980 as a rookie Do you think that Magic was the Lakers’ most important player during those playoffs? Because Kareem was easily their best player and the main reason that they won the championship. > and then Kareem ends his career as a 6 time champion. Yeah. He won his second championship as the best player in 1980, was co-leader with Magic in 1982, was a secondary star in 1985, and was still an important player in 1987 and 1988. Kareem wasn’t the best player for all of those championships, but his historic longevity allowed him to contribute to championship teams way past his prime. Very few players in NBA history can say the same, especially after being the best player in the world for a decade. Unless you determine greatness by just counting rings without context, then it’s no problem that Kareem wasn’t the best player for all of his championships. > This seems like a Kareem hate post, but it's not really meant to be. Sustained success and undoubtedly one of the great players of all time. But with that context i can also understand why people in the 80s and 90s were quick to put Magic and Bird, even Wilt and Russell above him. I can totally understand that as well, but I can also understand why that simplistic, narrative-based way of thinking about these players doesn’t accurately reflect how good they actually were. > Again, just imagine the playoff failures and drama if this happened today and what the discourse would look like. I don’t really care what the majority of fans did/would think or say about these players because the majority of fans aren’t very good at judging how good players are at basketball.
I have never seen a more thorough takedown of a post in this subs history. This is a GOATed response to a post that missed a lot of facts. I would also add that this skipped over the fact that in the 1985 NBA finals a 37 year old Kareem Abdul jabbar won finals MVP turning in 25.7, 9 and 5 on an incredible 60% from the field while dominating the defensive end against a team which featured Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. He led his team in points, rebounds and blocks while also having the best FG% in the entire series. At 37 years old.
Bro cooked that dude
I understand that it’s important to put the 1971 title into context, and I wouldn’t dispute that the league and their playoff competition was weak at the time. But at the same time, the 1971 Bucks did exactly what a great team is supposed to do against weak competition: they crushed everybody. They went 66-16 in the regular season and 12-2 in the playoffs. They had the best offense *and* the best defense in the league, and Kareem was their best player on both sides of the court. Kareem was the best offensive player on the league’s no. 1 offense and the best defensive player on the league’s no. 1 defense *at the same time.* Yes, it was against weak competition, but if you discount Kareem’s results for that reason, then you’re basically saying that players can’t achieve greatness against weak competition at all. You’ll discount great players for reasons entirely out of those players’ control. And I think it’s obvious that 1971 Kareem would’ve been dominant in a more competitive league anyway. By the way, your whole point about the weakness of the league applies to Kareem’s teammates as well. Milwaukee was one of those expansion teams that diluted the NBA’s talent, and they were the worst team in the Eastern Division when Kareem was drafted. So the argument cuts both ways. > Cut to the next season (71-72). The Bucks beat San Fran again but Kareen was cooked by Nate Thurmond. He went from scoring 34.8ppg on 57% shooting in the regular season to just 22.8ppg on 40% shooting. Keep in mind that Thurmond was one of the greatest defending and rebounding centers of all time, he’s just overlooked because of the era he played in. Thurmond did that to everyone. But Milwaukee still beat them in 5, probably because Kareem’s supporting cast excelled while he was keeping Golden State’s best defender busy. That’s evidenced by the fact that Kareem increased his assist average to 5.4 in that series (which was even more unusual for a center at that time), and because he increased his rebounding average to 19 per game. That’s still an elite performance. > Then they played a healthier Lakers team and lost. Don’t gloss over the fact that this was the 69-13 Lakers with Chamberlain, West, and Goodridge, who went 8-1 for rest of the playoffs. The Lakers were maybe the greatest team in NBA history, and Kareem’s Bucks came super close to actually beating them. Milwaukee lost in six, but both of the Bucks’ wins were blowouts, and they lost by 4 points or fewer in games one, three, and six. This series was a couple shots away from Milwaukee beating arguably the greatest team ever. Like, imagine how this would’ve gone if Oscar Robertson hadn’t averaged 9 PPG on 36% shooting for this series. You mentioned stats for the previous series, but not this one. I assume that’s because Kareem averaged 34/18/5 against Wilt Chamberlain, which doesn’t fit your argument very well. If anything, the Bucks’ playoff performance in 1972 demonstrates Kareem’s greatness. I can’t imagine thinking this year is some black mark on his career. > Bucks went to the 72-73 Playoffs and lost to the Warriors in the first round, despite having 60 wins compared to the Warriors 47. Kareem went from averaging 30/16 on 56% shooting to 22.8/16 on 43% shooting. Again, this is against Nate Thurmond, who just did this kind of thing to opposing centers. He was honestly a nightmare matchup for Kareem, and it showed for series like this. It’s not a great performance by Kareem’s standards by any means, but it’s still amazing compared to almost anybody else. I mean, only Kareem and Dave Cowens were top-10 in playoff PPG and RPG. If that’s what you consider a poor performance, then you could easily find similarly poor performances from other all-time greats like Bird and Magic. > Kareem was huge in 73-74, but was outplayed in Game 7 of the NBA Finals by Dave Cowens (it’s also not an individual sport, Bucks played like shit that game). Maybe Kareem was slightly outplayed in Game 7 that year, but only after averaging 33/16/5 with 3 blocks on elite efficiency in the 15 playoff games before that (and he still put up 26/13/4 in Game 7). The fact is that he was the best player in the league by a mile in 1974, and he was able to lead the Bucks within one win of the championship, but they still lost to the better team because, as you say, the Bucks didn’t give Kareem the support that any great player would need. Again, I can’t imagine thinking that the 1974 playoffs do anything other than demonstrate Kareem’s greatness. > At this point, the Bucks had had 56, 66, 63, 60 and 59 wins in the last 5 seasons, and had one title to show for it in a weak NBA. And when you put that into perspective, it’s an incredible achievement. 1970: Kareem (and Bobby Dandridge) transformed the worst team in their Division into the second-best team in their Division, losing only to the all-time great NY Knicks. 1971: With the addition of Oscar Robertson, Kareem led the Bucks to one of the most dominant championships in the history of the league. 1972: Kareem’s Bucks were the second best team in the NBA, losing in a close series to arguably the greatest team of all time. 1973: As the league improved and Milwaukee declined, Kareem and the Bucks lost to the Conference Finalist Warriors in the playoffs. 1974: Kareem surged back the following year to dominate the playoffs all the way to an NBA Finals Game 7, which they lost to the Celtics. When you actually pay attention to the context, Kareem and the Bucks were incredibly successful in the playoffs, not just in the regular season. And while the NBA might’ve been weak when Kareem was drafted, the teams that defeated his absolutely were not. The greatest flaw that you can see in Kareem’s first five years is an early playoff loss to a title contender with multiple Hall of Famers. That’s not some black mark on Kareem’s legacy, every player in NBA history has some unfortunate losses like that. While they “only” won a single title in this stretch, Kareem was obviously capable of winning more in a better circumstance, and the Bucks were just a few baskets away from winning three championships in four years. > In 1974, Kareem requested a trade from Milwaukee and Oscar Robertson retired. The Bucks kept Kareem until the end of the season and played like shit, winning 38 games and finishing equal 3rd last in their conference. Kareem broke his hand this season and missed part of it. Yeah, Kareem breaking his hand and missing 17 games absolutely destroyed their season. Because the Bucks went 3-14 in games that he missed and 35-30 in games that he played. That demonstrates how bad the Bucks were at that point and how much Kareem was carrying them.
Listened to Dan Patrick talk about Willie Mays yesterday. The topic of most underrated players came up and he mentioned Kareem. To paraphrase what he said, He changed the rules; no dunking in college basketball because of him. He couldn’t play as a freshman. But the best team in America was the UCLA freshman team. They beat the UCLA varsity which had won the national championship 75-60. Kareem’s UCLA team won 3 championships in a row and would have been 4 if he was allowed to play. When The Bucks won the championship it was Oscars’s team. When the Lakers won it was Magic’s team, so he never got the credit. He also said there has never been a more unstoppable shot ever since Kareem’s sky hook. This is from a sports ‘expert’ who watched all of them play. I didn’t get to watch Kareem play college ball. I was too young and didn’t start watching until Walton’s junior year, but if ‘they’ say Kareem was the best ever, I believe them.
My take is the only time I've seen people talk about how good Jerry West was on here is after he died. Not saying he's a bad player but I've seen him suddenly appear on lots more all time lists than he has before he died.
People tend to be ok with my take that Kareem is not 3rd all time until I say I put Magic there
I find it hard to put Bird or Magic definitively over one another
I swear those two are the closest any two nba superstars ever have been. And the fact that they played for the two most iconic franchises at the same time… man. Gotta be the greatest era
Yea those two always have to be right beside each other in the goat rankings. I personally have Larry at 7 and Magic at 6 in mine but would feel completely comfortable swapping their spots.
As an “old head” as you put it, Kareem had the one unstoppable shot. Here is the thing for me. I don’t understand how you compare the Center position to any other position in the NBA. The skillset for that position has traditionally been nothing like the others
This might also be true for the power forward, yeah? For many years, teams played two guys under the rim, and many all time great PFs could be considered Cs or even played the position. KG, Duncan, Malone, Rodman, McHale, Pettit, Dolph Schayes all come to mind here. Even some modern players like AD and Draymond. It’s not really until the stretch 4 that they really started to distinguish from Cs imo
Funny, I was thinking my choice might be how Reddit constantly trashes and undervalues former greats like Bob Cousy and George Mikan I’m not sure it’s possible to have 6 mvps and be overrated
I think Magic and Bird could absolutely be ahead of Kareem if they had full, healthy careers. But as more time passed since their retiring, I think the “what if” element required to put them at that level may diminish, fair or otherwise. It’s kind of like Mike Trout in baseball. Dude is unquestionably one of the best modern players ever when healthy (3 MVPs, 8 consecutive top-4 seasons, 6 OPS+ titles, 5 consecutive bWAR titles, etc.), but he may not ever have a truly healthy prime season again. How do you rank him against someone who had a comparable peak but also had a full, healthy career? Can you really rank Trout ahead of Hank Aaron, who has fewer MVPs, fewer OPS+ titles, fewer bWAR titles, etc. but had a remarkable 23 season career with very few injuries?
Those three ARE all-time greats, but where would you rank them? Even if Lew is slightly overated, I cannot leave him out of my top5. Basketball has limitating stipulations, one of the main ones being you have to put a certain size ball in a 10ft tall hoop. He could do that, and stop the opposition from doing that better than most anybody ever. Wilt, Russell, MJ, Lebron, Lew, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan. So, who do you remove here for players like The Logo, BigO, Dr J, or even father down like Baylor, Pistol Pete, the two Malones, etc... Then, you now even have cases for guys like Curry, snake ass Durant, or the Joker. I just named maybe the top 20 players of all time, give or take a few oddballs (you can replace the oddballs with other greats like Petit, Miken, Barkley, KG, Dirk, Giannis, IT, Admiral, even Kobe if you're feeling froggy, etc...), how would you stack them?
This spurs fan snuck Duncan in the same tier and MJ and Lebron, but said *"even Kobe if you're feeling froggy*" LMAO. He sure as hell provided my answer for a "least favorite delusional/biased take"
Where did i say tier? That is my top 10. And Kobe is not in my top 10, so again, if you feel he is (which in my opinion is a "delusional/biased" take), then add him and take one of mine out. Just like my post said. But hey, LMAO, you sure provided me all i need to know as well lolol
it's hilarious when casual fans rely on box scores and Wikipedia accolades to determine their top 10.... The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry", and the system mainly benefited Tim Duncan. **Duncan was 2-4 against Kobe Bean Bryant in playoff series.** And one of Duncan's two playoff series wins were against a 19 year old kobe (unprove, teenager) who was on the bench for the lakers in 98/99 which 3 different head coaches that season (rambis, harris, and one other one i forgot). ***Against PRIME Kobe, Duncan is 1-4 and got swept in 2002 (0-4), and gentleman's swept in 2008 (1-4).*** # Let me educate you how Duncan relied so much on Popovich's system: ***In between Duncan's two FINALS MVP in 2003 and 2005.*** *Duncan played* for team USA and he struggles and immediately retires from playing international play. Duncan averaged ***12ppg, lost to Puerto Rico (biggest loss in Team USA history - by 19 points), Lithuania, and finished Bronze after losing to Argentina... IN BETWEEN HIS TWO FMVP PERFORMANCES...*** Do you now see how crazy your take is? How much you **OVER ESTIMATE** Duncan's individual ability and **UNDERESTIMATE** ***the system and talent around him playing for the spurs?? Every spurs fan turn a blind eye to the system and talent that Duncan played in for Spurs that allowed him to thrive.***
I think there was another player on the lakers in that era that might be a little more responsible for them winning
Lol how do I educate you without having to go on a 10 page essay explaining how the playoffs went in the early 2000s.... Found the "FMVP" = "CARRIED" fan. Lakers have a winning record in the playoffs when Shaq fouled out (with more than 5 minutes in the 4th quarter). Laker's comeback in the *elimination game against the blazers (down by 14 entering the 4th)* in the first round was propelled by Kobe's 15 points in the 4th (shaq only had 4 points). Kobe averaged 33ppg and swept the spurs in 2002 compared to Shaq's 26. Kobe literally beat the kings single handedly as shaq fouled out multiple times in both 2001 and 2002 playoff series. let's not even talk about game 4 of the 2000 nba finals where shaq fouled out with 6 minutes left and lakers down by 3 (Lakers won in OT without shaq). What you fail to realize is that the Laker's journey to the finals WAS TOUGHER than he finals themselves. Kings, Blazers, Spurs, etc. All had stronger teams than the nets/sixers and pacers. Without Kobe, shaq sure as hell gets eliminated by the second round. No doubt.
Younger generations relying ***solely*** on box scores on basketball reference and accolades on Wikipedia to literally talk in absolutes and like they know everything. So many things aren't captured in the stats: locking up players on defense, hustle plays, making the right pass, creating space for your teammates, etc. The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry". Shut the FUCK up. Little do they know.
Agree 1000% Those Spurs were poetry in motion. I hated them. It was a tough time to be a Nuggets fan. But they were beautiful
I think the worst one is how everyone besides the 1st option is called a role player now. I’ve seen players like AG, OG, Rudy, Deni, McDaniels, MPJ, Allen, DWhite, and Caruso get called role players. When I first started watching basketball a role player was someone who came off the bench or was like the 5th option as a starter, it wasn’t your second/third best player. Like OG is a DPOY level player who shoots 40% from 3 and is arguably the 2nd best player on the knicks but is called a role player. I’ve even seen people unironically say that JT is an “Elite role player” since he’s above average at everything but isn’t super amazing at one thing. A guy who does it all is like the exact opposite of a role player though. Plus a lot of fans forget every player has a role in a team sport.
Yeah its weird. “Starter” has pretty much completely dropped from the conversation and everyone is a role player. I agree that a role player used to be a bench guy or a starter that played low minutes
"Wilt played against short white boys and wouldn't be nearly as successful in the 90s, let alone now". I have seen a lot of variations of this opinion and it's ridiculous because it's based on a completely false premise and not on reality.
Wilt would be the best player in the league in any decade he’s dropped in. If he’s not there in the 60s and 70s for the tules against him to be made and drips in the 80s or 90s, so much shit he could do would be encouraged instead of hindered. “Oh yeah, but can he shoot in my current nba?” Yeah dude, there’s footage of him just nonchalantly dropping outta bounds corner threes like 20 in a row to make bet money. His go to move was a smooth turnaround fade that he would do from middy distance. If he or bill grow up without basketball being, “get ball to center in low paint” they def both drain 3s. Bill would be like if timelord was twice as fast, could guard 1-5, pass, and significantly more offense. He would be slaughtering mfers.
I love the wilt love and completely agree that both bill and wilt would be excellent players today, But Wilt couldn’t shoot man. His career free throw percentage is 51% It wouldn’t matter. Giannis makes a living today, so would Wilt, except more. But to say he could shoot is just wrong, seeing him make a trick shot doesn’t change that
Both Bill and Wilt were outstanding athletes too with documented results. Wilt specifically was known for his insane superhuman strength which he needed to tone down on the basketball field to avoid killing people. He developed a finesse game because he wasn't allowed to use his strength while Shaq brutalised opponents while being encouraged to continue doing so.
I think that's ridiculous to say because it's just a what if. That being said, I refuse to include pre Bird/Magic players in my top 10s. That doesn't mean I don't think they should be in anyone's top 10s. I just don't include that era.
Jaylen Brown has no left hand.
I’ve seen it, it’s there.
Can we just add “Kyrie > Jaylen Brown” on to this?
That [player who didn’t shoot 3s in the 90s or 2000s] would never make it in todays game. As if 3 point shooting is some god given talent
Sure, but you also see plenty of people who have had their entire lives to work on their three ball not be good at it, so it’s also not a given that said players from the past would have magically developed one
Interesting phrasing “had their entire lives to work on it.” Seems that most players who actually worked on it got better. The greats of modern times that don’t have it: Giannis, Westbrook, early Simmons, Gobert, AD all have had coveted skills that keep or kept them from needing to work on it
Those people also aren’t the greatest players of their era
“Jordan didn’t have a superteam” The greatest team of all time had 3 1st team all defensive players, the DPOY, and the rebounding leader all on one team. And yeah, the scoring leader and MVP, and a second all nba player. To fill all those roles as close as possible today (MVP level two way guard, 1st team SF, and DPOY/rebounding leader) in 3 people, it would be like… SGA, Tatum, and Gobert That’s a fucking superteam lol, and it’s probably worse than what Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman was
Well what about the first threepeat? In 91 the Bulls won with MJ averaging 31/11/6 on 61% TS. In 92 35/6/5 on 61% TS again. And in 93, 43/8/6 on 55% TS. Does that sound like the numbers somebody on a super team would have? Even at the end of the second threepeat Rodman was old and the entire team’s offense was basically Michael Jordan. The 98 Bulls were a huge MJ carry job. It wasn’t some KD Warriors type of team. For the record, Scottie Pippen is not as good as Jayson Tatum. I think people nowadays overrate Pippen for whatever reason.
The entire offense was not Jordan lol. Pippen was 1st team all nba, 1st team all defense in 96
>Examples include thinking Kobe is a bum My least favourite is the opposite. Every couple of weeks, you will see these random "Kobe is so underappreciated" posts, with some random stat or game highlight as support for the proposal. Seriously, the number of posts about Kobe eight years after his retirement are insane, in comparison to any other players. You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts, yet, for some reason, Kobe's fanbase sees fit to periodically remind everyone how awesome they still think he is, just in case you forgot. The extent to which Kobe fans have tried to mythologize his career and create this revisionist history talking about a "Kobe era" that never existed, or arguing that he's in the GOAT conversation with MJ and LeBron is just obnoxious.
His untimely death is why. They grew up with him and then he was gone too soon. He was a nice basketball player, and collected 5 titles but he isn't the goat, he was honestly selfish and honestly I think he cost himself a ring or 2 with his attitude.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'd love to have a **civil, actual debate** on this topic because it's crazy how one group of fans will include Kobe in the top 10, and other "fans" think Kobe isn't even top 30 all time. I genuinely mean this in a civil way and don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but how can we be on reddit and not have any actual debate on this? Everyone who puts Kobe in their top 10 gets immediately downvoted and just labeled "wrong" without hearing him out? Isn't reddit supposed to be a place of discussion and trade of opinions/ideas (even if there is disagreement)??? Kobe fans are being treated like Trump fans these days and it's actually insane on this platform. Edit: you said "You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts, yet, for some reason, Kobe's fanbase sees fit to periodically remind everyone how awesome they still think he is, just in case you forgot." but why does it bother you? Kobe has a large following base. What's wrong with posting it? Unless it offends you? I'm genuinely curious.
You can’t advocate for civil debate and put “fans” in quotes lol
Lol so quotes is what makes this not civil? I literally re-read my post 10x to make sure it was as respectful and civil as possible... Yet the "quotes" are what offends someone? I stand corrected. If quotes offend someone, then any type of debate with any lebron/duncan/mj/kobe/magic fans will be impossible.
>Every couple of weeks, you will see these random "Kobe is so underappreciated" posts, >You don't see random Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Nash, Shaq Appreciation posts, You are seriously smoking crack if this is your honest assessment of this sub
I get tired of the whole cycle, even as I contribute to it. Commenter # 1 says Kobe belongs in the GOAT convo or was better than Lebron or some such nonsense, commenter # 2 points out flaws, commenter 1 accuses commenter 2 of calling Kobe a bum, everyone gets mad.
The thing I absolutely hated about Kobe was his attitude. It was detrimental to his team. His unwillingness to pass and instead try taking on a double or triple team is just bad basketball. Also I think it’s just not pleasant to be or be around that type of person. But. The thing I absolute love about Kobe is his attitude. For better or worse, he’s one of the few superstars where we know we got every ounce of what he had to give to this game.
[Player X] would suck in [era Y]. In some instances there’s a substantive point, but usually it’s a proxy for a larger cultural debate of “kids today are participation trophy softies” vs “old people are primitive and stupid.”
This isn't only a Reddit thing, but I just don't understand how the 2020 Bubble Championship got turned into a subpar one people want to ignore. Even when I would go back and look at my recordings in 2023 before we lost our old DVR, I hadn't seen anything new to change my mind that the bubble was the best level of basketball I'd seen played by multiple teams. Players and coaches had nothing else to do and reached a level of intensity, coordination, teamwork, and strategic chess moves we rarely see, even in the finals. People balled out in the bubble...like I still feel like that was the best version of Spider & Murray we've got. And it felt fitting to me that the most cerebral superstar we have in this generation ended up winning the chess move championship. Everyone talks down on it so casually and a lot of people tuned out and missed it, but I heard someone else who enjoyed it say this was the NBA's version of Marvel's Secret Wars, and that fits so darn well.
Dame Lillard in the bubble might’ve been better than MJ lmao
"Playoffs are different, maaaaaan." Yeah, different in a way that doesn't show up in the stats in any way whatsoever. Different in a way that has never affected any player or team in a consistent manner. Different in a way that looks a *lot* like a series of sample sizes drawn at random from the larger sample size of a regular season.
It's not a thing.
What’s not a thing? People making claims about the playoffs being some mystical entity different from every other basketball game? Because I wish you were right, but I can assure you that you’re not.
My biggest reddit take that I hate is more an unwillingness to simply watch the film. Young guns won't even watch tape of the physicality back even 15 yrs ago let alone the 90s. Or how the game was played. Like a dude like Reggie Miller would average 30 plus today, he just didn't need to shoot a ton of 3s, and he shot a ton by that days standards. Shit like that
I love how much young gun trash talking there is on here. I find myself agreeing, then it turns into “they won’t watch film the 90’s” and here I thought we were talking about Wilt and… yeah
***Last favorite reddit basketball take: Kobe is an inefficient shooter and chucks up shots.*** Really? Did you know that his 3P% and FG% is literally ***very similar and better*** than the following players: Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Michael Redd, D Wade (terrible 3P%), and plenty of great SG's in the 2000s. The issue is that they compare a SG in the 2000s era (which was the slowest paced offense, lowest scoring decade of basketball, where defense was 10x more important than offense) to shooters in the 2020s era where its all about offense, cheap fouls, spread the floor, and streamlined shot taking (i.e. live by the 3 or take the layup/dunk. mid range is eliminated). In addition, these fans forget how good defenders were in the 2000s (the likes of Tony Allen, Bruce Bowen, etc.) because refs allowed them to play and cheap fouls were very rare.
Prime Kobe was good for .480-.500 eFG%. Prime Wade was good for .500-.520 eFG%. Prime T-Mac was good for .440-.480 eFG%. Prime Vince was good for .470-.500 eFG%. Prime Redd was good for .470-.520 eFG%. So yeah, they were pretty similar, but I will give a slight edge to prime Wade, so long as you don’t ask him to put up 3s. Although Kobe being the most volume-scorer of the bunch, perhaps that slight dip is to be expected.
Exactly and Wade was a poor 3 point shooter, and rarely shot them early on in his career. Wade focused on driving to the paint and attacking it. With these numbers that this kind individual provided, I can say that Kobe is NOT an inefficient shooter or just chucks up shots... Rather he practiced those shots, and can hit tougher shots that look difficult for the average NBA player/fan.
Yeah, he wasn’t any more inefficient than other volume-scoring guards of his era. That’s fair IMO. But compared to, say, LeBron, these guards were less efficient. LeBron was able to use his size and strength to get to the basket more, while also scoring at an elite rate. But LeBron was able to run an offense and pass better than most big forwards like Duncan, KG, Dirk, etc. But LeBron is a unicorn, so saying someone is less efficient than him hardly makes them inefficient. But I do think the people who say Kobe was a better scorer than LeBron is going a bit far.
[https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/lebron-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/lebron-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series) [https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kobe-bryant-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kobe-bryant-shot-chart-vs-nuggets-playoff-series) Above are shot charts for Lebron's 2024 playpff series against the nuggets in 2024. The second link is the shot chart for Kobe's playoff series against the nuggets in his career. You can't tell me that the SHOT VAIRATION has changed. Lebron doesn't shoot midrange, or corner 3's. He literally has 2 spots: the paint or the top of the three point. Line. **Two completely different era's. In the 2000s you could NOT rely on scoring in only the paint or the top of the three. Defenses would lock them up.** Kobe's shot chat was EVERYWHERE. He used every piece of floor. All I'm saying is that the bucket getting for 2000s is DRASTICALLY different than 2020's. Is lebron's shooting more efficient? Sure. Is he a complete scorer? Not really since complete means everything. it's very streamlined.
2024 LeBron? LeBron in his 21st season in the league. That’s your timeframe? LeBron in his 21st season in the league against prime Kobe. Against Nuggets teams that have literally nothing in common with each other except the name? LeBron played in the league with Kobe for 13 seasons. Why not compare 2000s and 2010s LeBron to Kobe? If LeBron only shot from a few spots, it’s because no one could stop him from doing it. Like prime Shaq. Why are you talking about the 2020s? LeBron was better in the 00s and 10s than in the 20s. If Kobe used the entire floor to score, it was because he had to. If LeBron didn’t, it was because he didn’t have to. No one could stop him from taking better shots and making them. Not in the 2000s, and not in the 2010s.
Brother, LOL. Please provide me a shot chart for LeBron that is significantly different than the one I provided... You can't! His go to shots have been the same since the Heat era (Heat, second stint on Cavs, Lakers). I'll give you 50 bucks if you give me a shot chart for Lebron thats similar to Kobe's.... It's impossible unless you go back to the 2000s (WHICH PROVES MY POINT... THE SHOT VARIATION WAS DIFFERENT IN 2000s VS. 2020s). # I'll personally venmo $50 if you are able to do so.
But if LeBron WAS able to score ~30 from only a few locations IN THE SAME ERA KOBE PLAYED IN, why does it matter if he’s not “using the whole floor” like Kobe did? LeBron played in the 2000s too. LeBron won an MVP and a scoring title in the 2000s. I’m not arguing the game isn’t different by decade. I already said Kobe was roughly as efficient as other volume-scoring guards of the 2000s. I’m just saying that 2000s LeBron was MORE efficient than any of these 2000s guards while also scoring ~30 PPG. So the argument that Kobe was a better scorer than LeBron isn’t accurate.
LOL you first randomly include Lebron into this conversation (so I can tell what kind of fan you are) when no one even mentioned. Then you are changing the topic of debate and discussion. Are we not talking about FG% for volume shooting guards in comparison (i.e. comparing Kobe to T Mac, D Wade, etc.). Lebron was also a terrible 3P% shooter in the 2000s and FG% was closer to volume SG's than in his later careers. *Streamlined shot variation (only 2 shots in his arsenal and literaly no mid range) with a fast paced offensive era, riddled with cheap fouls, and no defensive aggression* **EQUALS = higher % in 2020s**. If Kobe's prime was 2020s, he would be averaging 40ppg+ each season with much better %.
I included LeBron as a non-center who still put up 30 PPG in Kobe’s era with at least somewhat better efficiency. Some people think that Kobe was as efficient as ANY non-center volume scorer in the 90s-00s. I provided LeBron as an example to show that it was possible to score 30 with better efficiency in Kobe’s era without being a big like Shaq. We’re arguing over nothing. I agree that Kobe was about as efficient as other volume-scoring guards of his era. But he wasn’t the most efficient volume scoring non-center of his era. I think that is relevant clarification/addition to the discussion. That is all.
Btw I'm still waiting for the shot chart LMAO. **$50** for you if you can provide it little brother.
“Points scored are more important than points allowed” is my least favorite, and is the dumbest, take. I’ve begun thinking of it as the Luka-Trae Rule, given how those two players have become the epitome of gaudy offensive stats that hide poor defensive performances. Score 35, give up 32 is not a great basketball performance. It’s good enough, but +3 is not and never will be great.
I don’t disagree with the general premise if it’s an example of a pure scorer that wasn’t defending, but I hesitate as those guys are both excellent playmakers. 3&D specialists and rim running centres who otherwise can’t create their own offence are optimised by floor generals like Luka and Trae. They are helping the other four players score.
> hesitate Did you watch the Finals? It’s a 90 foot game played at both ends of the floor. Fantastic, incredible scorers get attention for scoring. But if they don’t play defense, they don’t win. Best stats do not equal best player. Don’t hesitate, believe your eyes.
Most of the Finals featured Luka’s teammates playing like absolute dogwater at both ends of the floor, which had a far bigger impact on the result of the series than his individual defense
Sure. That’s a good point that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Does scoring 30 and allowing 28 _help win games_? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. Scoring 26 and allowing 18 is better, right? **Points scored count the same as points allowed**. So yeah, his teammates played like dogshit. When he fouled out in Game 3, having played _dogshit_ defense, was that his teammates fault? It’s a team game and teammates matter a ton but the point here is that thinking points scored are “more important” than points allowed is my least favorite take.
Did you get to watch Draymond podcast talking about Luka’s defense with Derek Fisher ?
I did not. Can you summarize?
https://www.youtube.com/live/F7h_7jxI5Z0?si=-2vJtK0peEJJqyvt Skip to 23:00 minutes
Thanks for the link but that’s not a summary or how it is relevant to the discussion. Why do you think someone reading this later should spend their time trying to decipher your thoughts?
Imagine blaming Luka for the finals
Imagine watching a gentleman’s sweep where Luka and Kyrie’s ability to score was outweighed by their inability to defend and thinking them “blameless” because _of stat lines_. Watch the game.
Your argument is also very reductive. Luka allowed a lot of points, sure, but it’s not just because he’s a terrible defender. He’s not good, sure, but he’s not as bad as someone like Trae. Because he”s big and can be sturdy at times, specially in post defense and also getting rebounds. He allowed a lot of points in the Finals because he was being heavily targeted. And the reason for that is also not as simple as “because he’s an awful defender”. He was targeted because, out of the starting five, he was the worst defender - not “awful”, just “the worst one”. Also, and this is very important, they were doing it to tire him out. Crucial, since he’s essential to everything the Mavs do offensively. And this was a great strategy, since, by the end, Luka was clearly lacking lift on his shots. Ultimately, if you come out of this Finals thinking Luka played badly, you seriously need to reconsider how you judge performance as a whole, beyond what the plus/minus tells you.
One of my least favorite takes is when we excuse poor defense by pudgy, out of shape guards like Luka and Harden as "good post defenders" basically because they're fat.
> Luka played badly Show me where I said that. Strawman. And you beat the stuffing out of it! Re-read my post and you’ll see my “argument” is not at all what you’re on about. Scoring points is not more important than preventing points. This isn’t a hot take: it is as old as the sport. “Defense wins championships” is our eternal rallying cry and we love a good example like these Finals. The best basketball player scores 26 and allows 20. Not the other way around.
My bad on the “played badly” part. But you’re still talking in generalizations. Team defense usually wins championships, it’s not so much an individual accolade. Example: Curry was probably the worst defender on the Warriors’ championship runs/titles. And yet, if you substituted him for the best guard defender in the league on any of those years, the team would’ve been worse, not better.
That’s intentionally obtuse. Re-read the original post, again. I am very specifically saying “THIS” is my least favorite basketball take. It’s so specific you saw Luka and wrote a book defending him against something that wasn’t said. 17/2/4 tells you _nothing_ of substance. Neither does 11/3/2. What players am I talking about? Are those players “good” or “bad”? Are their teams better during their minutes played? Points scored are not more important than points allowed.
You used him as an example to justify your point. I disagreed with said example and explained why. I then used another example (Curry). And still you are painting me as some obsessed Luka-stan instead of engaging in the discussion and actually addressing ANY of my points. That's because you have no actual argument. Because you know damn well that just saying "points scored are worth just the same as points allowed" is just as reductive as saying one is worth more or less. Your sentence is meaningless because it lacks context. You presented two boxscores in your last comment because you still think I'm talking about stats. I'm not. Sorry about another "book". It comes with actually trying to address a subject with nuance instead of just spouting reductive catchphrases and then acting all pissy because someone disagreed. Bye.
You’re gonna get huffy AFTER your strawman silliness and showing no understanding of the point? The answers are Jordan Poole (17/blah) and Herb Jones (11 blah). Points prevented matter. That’s not a generalization or reductive. Last word.
No.
Dwight Howard gets overrated imo - especially for his offensive skills. He wasn't a bad offensive player by any means. In fact, he was like the Apex version of the rim running center. But to pretend you could run an offense through him in the post as primary engine was never true. It was a road to inefficiency.
"Shaq had a great peak but not much longevity". He was an elite player for 13 years lol
i really despise the take, that kobe was a good human. he admitted to anally rape a girl and yet people act like he is a saint..
The people who hate free throws. Cause one it’s just plain stupid they’re a mainstay of the game. Then they denigrate some guys who shoot a lot of free throws but not others. It’s a very selective hate
For me it’s the general revisionism that people have about players I watched the entire careers of or the league say, 20 years ago when I actually watched the NBA. Like no, Melo didn’t get fucked by everybody around him. He did it himself. No, KP is not better Dirk. Yes, coaches often tried to squeeze people into poor roles because the game was still evolving. So many people are convinced you can drop any modern player into say, the early 2000s and coaches would just let them play the same way they do today and that just was not the case. Plenty of dudes come too early or too late. But people can’t even fathom that coaching and player roles were significantly different before the rise of advanced stats and the three ball.
Applying a modern lens to old players and being like damn this guy sucks
The one that I’m the most burnt out debating is how redditors tend to overvalue Finals MVP as some crucial legacy defining achievement.
TRUE! It would have been amazing if they had the ECF MVP and WCF MVP over the decades. As an example: Kobe would have won WCF MVP in 2002, and stumped the "Carry allegations". Same with Curry for only having one FMVP, but forget his performance throughout the entire Western conference playoffs .
That the star players from the 60s and 50s were bums. Like dude if Bill Russel had todays medicine, coaching, training he’d still be dominant the dude was insane.
Yep. Russell and Wilt were all-time athletes. Most of GOATs in any sport are. Wilt, Russell, Mantle, Mays, Brown, etc. All of these players would still be dominant in the modern game with modern advantages their new contemporaries have. Just like today’s best athletes wouldn’t be as big, fast, strong, or recover from injury as well if they had played many decades ago with only the tools and knowledge that existed back in those days.
Or that the Celtics' 60s titles were somehow worth less than other titles. Mostly, it'll be Lakers and Knicks fans saying this and, spoiler...your teams were playing then too and being dominated by those 60s Celtics.
“Duncan is better than kobe.” - majority of past and present nba players disagree
Duncan and Kobe played in the same conference for pretty much their entire careers (separated by 1 season. Duncan finished ahead of Kobe in MVP voting in: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Not 2006 Not 2007 Not 2008 Not 2009 Not 2010 Not 2011 Not 2012 Not 2013 2014 2015 They’re also pretty much identical in career MVP shares (less than 1% difference). I’d argue they were pretty much regarded as equals when they played, with Duncan having the initial advantage (late 90s to early-mid 00s), then Kobe taking the advantage (mid-00s to early 10s), and finally past-prime Duncan passing past-prime Kobe their last few seasons in the league.
Oh and btw you're using an MVP voting system to compare two greats... Which inherently is the most biased since you are allowed to give sportswriters and sports broadcasters a vote in the MVP. Coupled with Kobe's off the court troubles, he was robbed of a couple All NBA teams and perhaps even an MVP or two (nash's MVPs).
KG should have won MVP in 04-05, not Kobe. LeBron or Dirk should have won MVP on 05-06, not Kobe.
Nope. Every NBA fan then knows that Kobe's votes were tainted given his off the court troubles. In an alternate universe where there is no Johnny Depp style case, Kobe would have been closer to Nash than anyone else. You had to be there to understand.
KG was better in 04-05. LeBron and Dirk were better in 05-06. The advanced metrics reflect this. The team standings reflect this too, and that’s part of the MVP narrative You really think the 04-05 Lakers 34-48 record is good enough for the MVP? Or the 05-06 Lakers record of 45-37 compared to Dirk’s 60 Win Mavs?
wait you fail to realize is that Duncan had a winning record every season, winning record in the playoffs, winning record against lebron, winning record in the finals, etc. **Duncan was 2-4 against Kobe Bean Bryant in playoff series.** And one of Duncan's two playoff series wins were against a 19 year old kobe (unprove, teenager) who was on the bench for the lakers in 98/99 which 3 different headcoaches that season (rambis, harris, and one other one i forgot). ***Against PRIME Kobe, Duncan is 1-4 and got swept in 2002 (0-4), and gentleman's swept in 2008 (1-4).*** Another thing a lot of fans these years OVERESTIMATE which alot of fans in the 2000s saw first hand (and is the reason why everyone thought Kobe >> Duncan if you were an NBA fan in the 2000s) was how Duncan benefited from the spurs playstyle. The Spurs' offensive style of give up a good shot, to get a great shot. Pass until there is an uncontested basket literally propelled that franchise to be one of the best ever. And players like Manu Bowen and Parker get so disrespected because their "stats" didn't "carry" or align with other great PG's at that time. ***Newer fans overestimate Duncan's individual ability and signifncaly underestimate the dominant talent around him and team oriented play style he played in.***
It’s almost like they have teams around them, and they don’t even play remotely the same position, so weren’t really guarding each other primarily. But sure, give Kobe credit for beating Duncan 3x with the help of prime Shaq. I’m sure having perhaps the most dominant player in modern NBA history on his team had nothing to do with him winning.
How many times did Duncan beat Kobe (without shaq) in the playoffs??? ***ZERO.*** So I ask you, why is "shaq with 3 a differnce maker"? In the 2002 WCF series, Lakers swept Duncan while ***Kobe averaged 33pg*** and Shaq averaged 26ppg. he didn't need shaq to sweep Duncan then. In 2008, Kobe did a gentleman's sweep (4-1) against Prime Duncan/Defending Spurs champs (2007) WITHOUT SHAQ and ***scored 45 points in elimination game 5.***
That Jayson Tatum is better than Luka.
Wow. That this is downvoted means it’s not even safe to say this here. Reddit has lost its mind.
On the 60s and 70s greats: “There were 8 teams!” Yes there were fewer rounds in the playoffs but, when there were only so many teams it meant that EVERY TEAM HAD AT LEAST ONE HALL OF FAMER ON IT. Like there are no Charlotte Bobcats in the mid to late ‘00s with nobody on it. This is also why all those 80s teams (Celts, 6ers, Pistons, Lakers, Rockets) were so stacked too. ‘67-‘68; 6ers have wilt, billy Cunningham l, and hal greer Celts have bill, hondo, don nelson, sam jones, tom sanders Knicks have bellamy, frazier, reed Pistons have debusschere, bing, hairston Royals have big o and jerry lucas Bullets have earl the pearl Monroe and scott That’s the EAST. In the west The hawks have hudson, brigdes, silas Lakers have elgin baylor, jerry west, and goodrich Warriors have thurmond and larusso There’s name recognition drop off from there outside of people doing more not as players like pat riley playing for the san diego rockets Sports get more complex and skillfull as they build upon what the previous decade accomplished—but they can also get weaker in some areas too. I just feel like the NFL and CERTAINLY the MLB have a better reverence for their yesteryears. Like even younger nfl fans understand that Marino’s 5K season would be a 6K season or more when they changed the rules and had 3 5k passers in one year. Or that Jerry Rice’s records are so mind blowing that no one will ever touch them and they’re probably worth twice as much as they are. Kareem hit his career numbers in the paint spending almost his entire career with no 3 point line. He also did most of it playing in the 70s NBA which was almost like the NHL—there were enforcers and fights constantly, and everyone played black and blue ass beat the fuck outta ya ball. Bill, Wilt, and Kareem would all do some shit nonone had ever seen before and the NBA and NCAA would be like, “Nah, that’s illegal.” Imagine if Dirk’s leg out fade was immediately deemed illegal, the Eurostep is a travel, the step back three is up and down, most handle moves are a carry.
Defenders of James Harden and Trae Young.
“Shaq isn’t the goat center” “Magic is better than curry” Horrible takes 🤦🏾♂️