(07-25-2024, 01:22 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Compared to 20 or even 5-10 years ago we are watching a different sport. I agree with your point that in the late 90s and early 00s iso midrange scoring was more important than it is today. Not really sure how that translates to the modern NBA. Can we assume that Kobe would have turned into a LBJ/Luka like passer out of double teams or would have increased his 3-point volume?
I don't really need to imagine Kobe on a perfectly constructed team around him. He already had more help than most of his peers. Outside of the short stretch from 05-07 he played his entire prime with all-NBA and all-defense caliber teammates. Winning three of his rings next to one of the best centers of all time.
Bigs are supposed to have higher TS% when they are just finishers. Tyson Chandler or DAJ belong in that category because all they do is dunk. Dirk was a shot creator with comparable or higher midrange volume than Kobe. Simply a better shooter. Leading to better TS% and no decline in the playoffs. Dirk's case over any other offensive superstar in the 00s are his impact metrics. No matter who played next to him. As long as Dirk was on the floor the team had an elite offense. Kobe is one of the best offensive first options of the 00s but not on the same level as Nowitzki or Nash. Always needed a great big/pick and roll partner (Shaq/Gasol).
Duncan isn't just in the conversation because he was a solid first option on offense. His case is just as much about all time great defense. Being the anchor of some of the best defensive teams in history.
Kobe was the golden child of the NBA because he is the closest thing to Jordan we have seen. Style of play. Attitude. Marketability. You don't need to be the best player to be the face of the league.
Just need to look at this years playoffs. League is desperate for the next Jordan/Kobe. Edwards is the closest thing. Hype was unreal. ESPN talking heads ranked him as a top three player in the league. Ringer put him ahead of SGA and Doncic on their 25 and younger list. Their case...he has the "it" factor. The "it" is everything I described above.
Show me on the doll where Kobe hurt you?
I think maybe you don't have an appreciation for the level of talent that was needed to separate oneself to the extent he did. You're saying things like "closest thing to Jordan", as if that's something to be taken lightly... but it's actually amazing for us fans to watch that he got so close to the greatest. And saying "Kobe always needed a great big/pick and roll partner"... as if that's some big negative for Kobe compared to Dirk... well, if that's the argument you're going to make, then the flip side is, I could say things like, "Dirk couldn't win diddly-squat unless he had a team that was perfectly balanced in every other position 1-5"... like he finally had in 2011. And if Dirk didn't need a perfectly balanced team to cover for his flaws, well, then Dirk would have had 5 titles to his name and Kobe would have had 1. But guess what? It's the opposite.
Also, check your Duncan stats fam. Duncan was one part of an overall great defense. He wasn't the "anchor", even though this has become the modern narrative. The actual anchor of that team, and you should know this if you've been watching the NBA closely since 1998, was the swarming defense by their perimeter defenders. When Bruce Bowen retired, the Spurs' DRTGs went to shite (by their previous lofty standards), and only came back up again when Kawhi became dominant. So who was the "anchor"? Was it Duncan, was it Bowen/Kawhi, was it part of a system? Yes, Duncan was a great defender, but if Duncan was as great on defense as the modern narrative has become, then why the large dip when Bowen retired? Hakeem was a much better defender than Duncan, because Hakeem was that much more athletic, and had the same if not higher BBIQ. Hakeem's teams never had so large of a dip. I've seen both play in person and young Hakeem stood out way more than Duncan, on both ends of the floor. And don't forget that Duncan had Parker and Ginobili (two of the best in their respective positions)... and yet never won a back-to-back, and more importantly, would have gone win-less from 2004-05 until forever (if not for the NBA robbing the Suns in 2006-07, and then Lebron choking in 2013-14... although, I can't really blame Lebron for "choking" that year, since the 2013-14 Spurs team was more stacked and balanced than the Heatles, to those who follow closely and know different player's abilities instead of just going by names).
While I'm on the subject of Duncan, I also want to ask this question of the "students of the game"... how is it that Kobe is inefficient, but yet he scored at a higher percentage from "post-moves" than Duncan did? Post-moves were supposed to be Duncan's forte, as a big, right? Yet, you have a little 6'5" guard who was more efficient than Duncan, a 7-footer, in the post? And yet, Duncan was efficient and Kobe was not? How is this possible? It's part of the modern narrative that boggles my lil ole mind.
Anyway, I think Kobe was a greater player than Duncan and Dirk. He was the best player in the league from 2005-2010, and joint best with Duncan and Garnett between 2001-05 (Shaq had become too big/lazy or he would've been the undisputed #1 in those years). Also, to answer your question about playing style, 2000-01 Kobe played a heck of lot more similar to Luka, i.e., he also distributed and orchestrated, but then he changed for off-court reasons (Shaq's ego and the things Shaq would say), started playing more selfish so that nobody could question his greatness. Go back and watch the film. I also think Hakeem was greater than either Duncan or Dirk. I would put Hakeem over Kobe too. This is a Mavs board though, and I'm aware of my audience, so I won't drag it out.
PS: If any part of my message comes across as confrontational, please don't take it that way. I love talking hoops and appreciate your discussion. Cheers!
