I'm with you. I think Kobe is overrated by many many people. He's a very good player historically, but was never the best player in the game, even for a season (yes, even when he averaged 35 ppg). He is the greatest volume scorer ever.
Also, his defense is wildly overrated. There was a time, when he played with Shaq, where, yes, he was a fantastic defender. But once Shaq left, so did the D.
He has 5 titles, I'll concede that. And he earned them, too. But he won 3 with Shaq, and he needed Perkins to tear his ACL to win his 5th.
Fair enough on that point. My thought is more that he performed horribly in that Game 7, and I should have stuck with that.I agree with pretty much all of this, but I think that last part is unfair. For starters, there is no way to know what would have happened if Perkins hadn't torn his ACL (though I tend to agree the Celtics probably would have won), and secondly, you can apply the injury card to hundreds of different series' throughout the history of the NBA, and it could just as easily be said that a healthy Andrew Bynum could have swung the series in '08 (and he wasn't full-strength in '10, either).
You don't get to just say, carte blanche, the people playing now are better. We can compare. There are stats, like PER, that look at how these guys did against their peers (and some of them don't back me up--Kobe has a higher career PER than West, for one). But also, West played with and against numerous players from the 60s and 70s, and performed well against them. And they played against players from the 70s and 80s. And they played against players from the 90s. And there wasn't a sudden drop. West played against Kareem. Kareem played against Bird and Jordan. Jordan played against Shaq. Shaq played with Kobe.Elgin Baylor and The Logo cannot be compared to Bryant if only because of era. They probably had more impact on the game as a whole, but it is at least debatable.
Going back to the original question about who has had the better career, I think the last couple of years say it all. Ray was recruited by the game's best player. Nobody wanted AI even though he could still play. What does that say about his career? His career ended with pity, but not enough to make any team give him a chance. He was a chemistry killer. It's probably true that the "76ers team he took to the finals may have been the weakest finals team ever". But the team they beat to get there was clearly one of the worst teams to ever make a conference final.
I didn't say one era was better than the other or that those playing in a given era are better. I said they cannot be compared. I'm not sure how PER is calculated but does it take into account rule changes? How about referee bias? You can boil down statistics any which way you choose, but none of them are perfect. If distilled carefully enough, most can support what ever argument you are presenting.You don't get to just say, carte blanche, the people playing now are better. We can compare. There are stats, like PER, that look at how these guys did against their peers (and some of them don't back me up--Kobe has a higher career PER than West, for one). But also, West played with and against numerous players from the 60s and 70s, and performed well against them. And they played against players from the 70s and 80s. And they played against players from the 90s. And there wasn't a sudden drop. West played against Kareem. Kareem played against Bird and Jordan. Jordan played against Shaq. Shaq played with Kobe.
I get what you're saying. But I think it's a cop-out to suggest we can't compare players. Sure, nothing is perfect when comparing players of different eras...but nothing is perfect when comparing players from the same era.I didn't say one era was better than the other or that those playing in a given era are better. I said they cannot be compared. I'm not sure how PER is calculated but does it take into account rule changes? How about referee bias? You can boil down statistics any which way you choose, but none of them are perfect. If distilled carefully enough, most can support what ever argument you are presenting.
Going back to the original question about who has had the better career, I think the last couple of years say it all. Ray was recruited by the game's best player. Nobody wanted AI even though he could still play. What does that say about his career?
You mean the Bucks team with Ray Allen, Sam Cassell and Glenn Robinson that won more games and went further in the playoffs than any Ray Allen-led team ever? Let me see if I understand your logic: if only Allen Iverson and his team of role players had overcome a team that had a better star player than Ray Allen, you would be more impressed with Allen Iverson carrying his team to the finals. In the context of comparing Allen Iverson (unfavorably) to Ray Allen. That's just fantastic!
What a strange attempt at a point. It doesn't say anything about his career. Miami wanted Ray because he's a (deadly) spot up three point shooter. Iverson is (was?) an undersized scoring guard. What does the fact that Miami wanted Ray - or the fact that Ray's primary skill has a longer shelf life than Iverson's - possibly say about their respective careers? I don't think anything.
I'm not trying to trash people's knowledge of basketball, but the love affair of Kobe--and the specific phrase "most skilled 2 guard in NBA history"--is ESPN driven. That phrase in particular is a weasel phrase, too. How are you judging "skill"? It's being contrasted with "raw ability" or some nonsense to try to give Kobe an edge against MJ. It's all BS.
I'd take MJ, and Jerry West (imagine him with a 3 point line?), before Kobe. And I'd consider a healthy Elgin Baylor, too, although career-wise Kobe's got him.
After MJ retired in 98, AI was the
really, come on look at who Kobe played with in his prime as opposed to AI. Better career is Kobe obviously.
I think that's fair, and there's clearly something to it. We see it physically. But some seem to suggest that the players in the 60s were inferior, in more than just having proper health and strength conditioning.Difficult for me to pick between eras (1960s). Game is so different, and let's face it, I wasn't watching.
old school- bob cousyCalvin Murphy has a say about that.
Not sure if this should figure in or not, but just for giggles, career earnings:
Ray 184 million and counting
Iverson 154 million and not counting
30 million here and 30 million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
It's just crazy money when you put it into reality. If you make $250,000/year which most people would say is a lot of money, you would have to work for 736 years to make Ray Allen money. $75,000/year which is pretty solid and above average would take you 2,453 years to reach Ray. Crazy money.AI clearly better at spending though.