Kobe Bryant's Place in History: How Does He Fit Among the G.O.A.T.?
At the beginning of the season, there were those who wondered if Kobe's time was coming to an end.
With the knee problems, the tremendous miles he's put in, they weren't unreasonable concerns. He's answered the bell.
In many ways, this may be his finest year yet. His numbers might not be the same, but his leadership is at an all-time high.
It prompted Charles Barkley to recently name him as one of the five greatest players of all time. Kenny Smith was incredulous.
So where does he fit among the greatest of all time (G.O.A.T)?
That's not an easy question to answer. In fact, ultimately, it might be impossible.
That doesn't mean we can't try, though.
In considering two things are essential to understand. First, stats don't mean everything. Second, stats don't mean nothing, either.
There is a point where stats can be taken too far. There is a point where stats aren't taken far enough.
There is more to the game than merely stats, but stats are an objective measure of what happens in a game.
How many points Kobe has scored is a matter of fact, not opinion. How he came by them, and how much significance those points bear in the Lakers' five championships while he's played for them are matters for opinion.
I will attempt here to try and look at Kobe from a complete perspective. At the same time, I'll look at the other players in the conversation with the same balance, and then place him in history accordingly.
Where I Stand on Kobe
1 of 9
Kobe Bryant isn't polarizing.
He doesn't get the blame for that. NBA fans do.
For whatever reason, there's this need to establish what a person's feelings on Kobe are before even the most objective of discussions can take place. So rather than leave everyone wondering what my feelings around Kobe are, I'll just come out and tell you.
I like him, but I'm not "in love" with him.
Let me just point you to the ring ceremony. I'm not all that concerned with what "kobeisaballhog88" or "kobeisnojordan" or even "kobeisthegoat" think of Kobe.
I'm just going to point to what his teammates think of him. During that celebration, there was no doubt there was genuine appreciation, affection and respect for him from his teammates.
As far as what matters on the court, that's about all that matters.
It's not just his teammates who respect him, either. Yesterday, after the Bulls game, Kobe spoke with Rose for about a minute in the postgame hand shakes.
During the game, Rose had even left Kobe in his dust with a couple of breathtaking, "oh NO he didn't!" crossovers. It seemed from their expressions that Kobe was giving him some encouragement, and that Rose was genuinely touched by whatever Kobe was saying.
It just seems to me, and this is subjective, that Kobe is respected league-wide. NBA nobility is not bestowed.
It is acquired, and Kobe has acquired it.
I think that Kobe, and perhaps Tim Duncan, are the most respected players by the league today.
I think Kobe landed in a good situation when he was traded to the Lakers. If he'd spent his career in Charlotte, things may have gone differently.
But I don't think hypotheticals, which would require omniscience, are good starting places for arguments.
History, however, is reality. Kobe was traded to the Lakers, where he was teammates with the single most dominant force in the paint at the time.
Kobe's game developed, and the two of them won three rings together.
I moved from Anaheim to Chicago in June of '98, on the day that Jordan retired. When I was in LA, I was a Lakers' fan.
I was born in Louisiana and, as such, followed LSU, and had been a fan of Shaq from college. When I moved to Chicago, I stuck it out as a Lakers fan through the first three-peat.
When the breakup happened, I was annoyed with both players and thought the whole thing could have been avoided if they'd just acted like grown-ups instead of little kids. It was about that time that I decided it was time to just accept the fact I was in Chicago and start following the local teams.
When the rape charges came out, I was stunned. I think that Kobe was treated unfairly by a lot of people in the media and on the Internet.
However, I think that those who said that Kobe didn't do anything wrong (his wife sure didn't think so) were not seeing Kobe's failings in the situation. I also think that Kobe took the situation, learned from it and actually grew as a person as a result.
I believe that the latter two championships are a result of that growth and maturity.
I like Kobe, and I respect his game. I don't think he's flawless.
I think that there are those who give Kobe too much credit, and I think that there are those who don't give him enough credit. That's where I stand, though I'm sure that I'll be accused of being both a fan in disguise and a hater in disguise as a result of this article.
That's fine. I just ask that you respond to the arguments, and not what you might perceive as the motive for this article.
My Method
2 of 9
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scored an amazing 38,386 points in his career.
It's a mind-boggling number.
In the NBA, if you're going to talk about the greatest players of all time, you kind of have to include scoring.
Scoring is what Kobe does best. That's not to say he doesn't do anything else well; it's just to say that if you're going to include him in the discussion of GOAT, that's the first thing you're going to have look at.
In other words, to answer the question of is he among the greatest players of all time, first we have to establish that he is among the greatest scorers of all time. Now of course, most people would agree that establishing the greatest scorers of all time is not as simple as just looking at the leading scorers of all time and copying down the list.
It might seem nonsense to say, "there's more to scoring than just scoring" but most basketball people would agree with that statement. So many things factor into it; that is just a starting point, not a conclusion.
I'll acknowledge a couple of things from the outset. There are at least three players that are commonly considered among the all-time greats that are arbitrarily dismissed by this somewhat random delineation.
Those players are Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Julius Erving. Dr. J. did score 25,000 points, but not all of them were in the NBA.
So, to compare, I thought I'd take a comparison of the top scorers of all time and see how Kobe stacks up against them in several areas. I want to look at it in several ways.
First, I want to look at the totals and per game averages for several different areas. Then I want to zero in on just what the guards are doing, both per game and totals.
I will provide links for each category. I'll start with scoring.
Scoring
3 of 9
In all, there are 15 players who have scored 25,000 points or more.
Of those, as stated previously, Kareem is first while Jerry West is 15th with 25,192. Kobe is 12th.
However, not all these players have played the same number of games. If you look at the per-game averages of those same players, Kobe is fifth with a robust 28.8.
Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson and Wilt Chamberlain are the only ones who are ahead of him on both lists. Jerry West is ahead of him on the per-game list, as well.
It would be a strange argument to say that since there are only three players ahead of him on both lists, he's the fourth-best scorer of all time. It would be cherry-picking, saying he's better than West over here, but he's better than Shaq over here.
That doesn't mean I can't see people making it, though.
When looking at this, there are a couple of things to remember. First, Kobe has some advantages because of his era, and he has some disadvantages that should be taken into consideration also.
He didn't start the first two years of his career. As a result, it lowers his per-game averages over his career.
If you look at just his scoring after he was a starter, he's third all-time per game.
Having said that, it's a bit of a problem because it selects out the worst seasons for Kobe, but not for everyone else. Many of the players who are on the list saw their per-game averages drop near the end of their careers, while Kobe has yet to start feeling the effects of that inevitability.
If you look at the players from ages 20-30, Kobe is only seventh all time.
Furthermore, it needs to be kept in mind that many of the players ahead of him on the list played without the three-point line. Jerry West, aka "Mr. Outside," probably would have hit one or two threes in his day.
In fact, it's not impossible that had he played his entire career with a 3-point line, he would have been the career leader in that. Or you could argue the opposite.
If Kobe didn't have a 3 point line, he wouldn't have yet reached 25,000 points. He would only be averaging 23.96 points per game.
There are those who would make the argument that today's game is faster and more athletic, though. And because of that, it's harder to score.
They would say that Kobe's points were harder to come by that Wilt's. At a certain point, a person could hypothesize just about any argument they wanted to make.
Just about.
Can it be argued that Kobe is one of the top five scorers of all time? Yes.
Can it be argued he's not one of the five scorers of all time? Well, yes, that can be argued too.
It would be a stretch to say he's better than three or worse than 10, though.
Just from a pure scoring perspective, not taking field-goal percentage into account, I'd put Kobe sixth all time, behind Wilt, Michael, Kareem, Oscar and West.
I'm not saying any other list is unreasonable. I'm just saying that's where I'd put it.
It's not just about how much you score, though.
The Percentages
4 of 9
It's not just how much you score.
It's how many shots it takes you to get there.
OK. Maybe that's not the next great quote to be spread around the Web, but it's true—to a point.
There are different ways of measuring those percentages. I'll take into account each one, and then I'll look at what the guards have done specifically.
First we'll look at the raw percentages. His normal field-goal percentage is .454, placing him 13th of the 15 players who have scored 25,000 or more.
His 3-point percentage is .340, placing him second among the five that have enough 3-point attempts to qualify.
His free-throw percentage of .839 places him fourth.
I read one article that compared Bryant to Jordan, which pointed out that Bryant, because he was higher than Jordan in 3-point percentage and free-throw percentage, was a better shooter. Not so fast.
There's a major breach of logic there. First, it makes all percentages equal, and second it makes all differences in percentage equal.
Let's say two players each take 100 free throws, 100 regular field goals and 100 3-pointers.
Player A makes 50 of each. Player B makes 0 3 pointers and 51 each of regular field goals and free throws.
Player A scores 300 points, player B scores 153 points. But by that writer's logic, player B is the better scorer.
That's why there are two kinds of percentages which take into account the differences. Effective field-goal percentage (eFG) accounts for the 3-pointers, and true-shooting (TS) percentage, which combines free throws, field goal and three-point percentage into one tidy number.
Looking at the eFG percentage, Kobe is helped somewhat, moving up to 10th.
However, it should be pointed out that Bryant is benefiting from the fact that West and Robertson didn't have a three-pointer at all, and English only had one for a single season. All three would have probably hit their fair share of three-point shots, as they are all very good outside shooters.
He doesn't catch English, but he passes West and Robertson. It's fair to give him credit for moving past Wilkins, though.
Looking at the TS percentage, he moves past Wilt, English and Olajuwan to eighth place. Interestingly, in spite of not having the 3-point line and a lower free-throw percentage Oscar moves past Kobe again here.
This is explained by him having taken about 2,000 more free throws. Reggie Miller's .392 3-point percentage makes him the all-time leader in TS percentage.
If we look at just the guards who have scored over 25,000 points, and at their TS percentage, Kobe is fourth, ahead of only West, who did not have the 3-point line to help his TS percentage, and who only trails Kobe by .006. His actual field-goal percentage is .200 higher, though.
So in sum, it's hard to argue that Kobe is one of the top five shooters of all time. Even if he's one of the top five scorers.
You can barely even force the argument that he's one of the five best shooting guards (not to be confused with shooting-guards) of all time, particularly when you consider that there are other guards, Allen and Gervin, with 20,000 points and higher TS percentage.
Now there are some who might point out that Kobe's scoring comes from further away from the basket. So it's unfair to compare his shooting to someone like Shaq's who scores at or near the rim.
I will say that's a fair argument, and that TS% mitigates that, somewhat.
I will also say that is to a degree a subjective argument. Yes, they are more difficult shots, but they still count for two points.
On the other hand, having perimeter scoring is a different aspect, and has its own value to a team winning. In essence, it comes down to what you feel, subjectively, is a fair distinction.
Is it significant enough to count John Havlicek's .439 over Shaq's .582? It's all a matter of how much leniency you're willing to provide.
It would seem odd though to arbitrarily dismiss players like Kareem and Wilt from the conversation on the basis of their points being in the paint.
Assists
5 of 9
Of course, there is more to the game than scoring.
If determining the greatest players in the history of the league were merely a matter of scoring, as I said before, determining a list of greatest players would be as simple as consulting a list of top scorers.
One of the key aspects of basketball is passing, which is largely measured in assists. Here, you can see the scorers who have the most total assists, and here by assists per game.
As you can see, Kobe is seventh in former, and fifth in the latter with 4,838 total assists and 4.7 assists per game, respectively. Of the five guards with 25,000 points. only Reggie Miller has fewer assists.
The problem with assists is that it doesn't factor in that the player himself can't assist himself when he scores. So, by scoring, he by default cannot have an assist, meaning the more he scores, the less assists he will have.
That's why a more recent stat—assist percentage—exists. It factors what percentage of points scored by a player's team were assisted by a player.
In this metric, Kobe is second among all players. It should be stated, however, that Robertson and West, who would likely be ahead of Kobe here, do not have that statistic available.
Another aspect that commonly goes with assists is turnovers. This may come as a surprise to some, but the NBA didn't keep track of turnovers until 1977-78, so we only have the data for nine players.
Among those nine, Kobe has given up the fifth-fewest turnovers, and the sixth-fewest per game. In terms of assist-to-turnover ratio, the Play Index doesn't have the option available.
So instead of a link, you just get the numbers.
| 1 | Michael Jordan* | 1.93 |
| 2 | Reggie Miller | 1.72 |
| 3 | Kobe Bryant | 1.60 |
| 4 | Alex English* | 1.53 |
| 5 | Karl Malone* | 1.16 |
| 6 | Dominique Wilkins* | 1.00 |
| 7 | Shaquille O'Neal | 0.92 |
| 8 | Hakeem Olajuwon* | 0.83 |
| 9 | Moses Malone* | 0.43 |
Here, Kobe fares fairly well. While Reggie Miller has fewer assists, he moves over Kobe in assist-turnover ratio.
It's also apparent that guards fare much better than big men in this category, and in assists overall. That's expected, but the same logic applies as to FG percentage.
If shooting guards shouldn't be faulted for playing their position, neither should power forwards and centers.
Rebounding
6 of 9
The third major category is, of course, rebounding.
Just as guards are inclined to do better in the assist department, the big men are going to be doing better in the rebounding department.
Among players who have scored 25,000 points or more, Kobe is 13th out of 15 in total rebounds. In rebounds per game, he is 14th with 5.3.
There's really not much point in doing a guard comparison here. It's pretty evident that Kobe is fourth of the five guards.
My first inclination was that Kobe was a bit lower in rebounding is because he's had to play with some great rebounders in players like Shaq and Pau. However, that argument doesn't measure up to the history.
In fact, his four best seasons came with with one or the other.
The leader in rebounding per game is Wilt with 22.9, by the way, with a full 10 rebounds per game more than any of the others who have scored 25,000 or more points. Just an aside, in case you hadn't noticed.
Player Efficiency Rating
7 of 9
It's ironic that Kobe fans often dismiss PER because it is one of the best arguments for him.
There are two common critiques of PER. First, it rewards bad shooting.
Second, it doesn't take into account defense. The former rewards Kobe, the latter perhaps works against him.
Hollinger says it is a measure of overall offensive performance, and isn't intended to be a measure of defensive performance.
Another factor that should be mentioned is that while PER doesn't measure defensive performance overall, it does factor in steals and blocks, and also negatively factors in turnovers. Therefore, players who played before those stats were tracked will tend to have a slighly lower PER.
Having said all of that, Kobe's PER is seventh all time. He is second among the guards on the list, only behind Michael.
However, remember that the PER is not an accurate reflection of Oscar or West.
Rings and Subjectivity
8 of 9
Rings are a difficult thing to measure, much more difficult than merely counting up the number of championships.
If it were that simple, then Bill Russell would be the greatest player of all time, no questions asked.
It's not that simple. Basketball is a team game, so teams win championships.
It's difficult to ascertain who gets more credit for a ring.
Certainly Kobe get more credit for the Lakers' last win than Ron Artest. He gets more credit for the first three than Robert Horry, and he gets more credit for all five than Derek Fisher.
But how much? And why?
Furthermore, how does that compare to Michael's six? Or for that matter, do his five count more than Sam Jones' 10?
If you say they should, then what about Tim Duncan's four? Or for that matter, why more than Shaquille's four, especially if you give Shaq more credit for the first three?
And then, if you give Kobe more credit than Shaq for the first three, why Kobe? Or why Shaq?
It can end up being a convoluted mess. Crediting players for rings eventually boils down to one word: subjectivity.
The same goes for defense. There just isn't a good objective measure of defense; it comes down to the eye test.
The saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So is defense.
There is also a fallacy known as "confirmation bias." We tend to unconsciously select what confirms our bias.
When those who see Kobe as a great player see him make a defensive play, it affirms that bias. When they see him get torched, it's the exception.
When those who are biased against Kobe see him get burned, it "proves" that he's overrated. When they see him make a great play, it confirms their bias.
The same goes with clutch shooting. Last season, he made seven game-winning shots in a single season, while missing only one, setting the NBA record.
In the six years prior to that, he'd missed 42 of them, while making only 14. Those who want to say he's an "assassin" will point to the 21 he's made.
Those who think he's "overrated" will point to the 43 he's missed. Overall, his average 32 percent is slightly higher than the league average of 30 percent in game-winning situations.
It should also be mentioned that Kobe has an advantage right now in this conversation because he can be "beheld" so to speak. Youtube clips notwithstanding, you can't watch BIll Russell, Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain play live right now, in high def.
The subjective exists for Kobe in a way it did not for them. Reading about Wilt's dominance is not the same as seeing Wilt's dominance.
I mention all of this because subjectivity is the only way that Kobe can be argued to be among the top five players of all time. I'm not saying that subjectivity has no place in the argument—it does.
It should be remembered, though, that subjective analysis and subjective preference can often get in one another's way. If you want to see Kobe as better/worse than he really is, you will, and then you can say that it's based on what you actually saw.
If you are not aware of your bias, you are victim to it.
What I Think
9 of 9
In my opinion, Michael is the greatest player of all time.
He dominated an era that spanned many of the great players and teams of all time. Whether it was Stockton and Malone, Charles Barkley, David Robinson, Mark Price and the Bulls' "Washington Generals" and so on, there were so many great players that never won a ring because of Michael Jordan.
Plus, his celebrity was so high that he was, at one time, the most recognizable face in the entire world. Even more well-known than Mickey Mouse.
Other players that I can't in good consciousness not put among the top five are Oscar Robertson, who was arguably the greatest all-around player of all time. He averaged a triple-double, for crying out loud.
Don't think for a second that fantasy sports haven't influenced our concept of greatness. If Oscar were playing right now, he would be 10 times as famous as he was.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, with his six MVPs, six NBA championships and 19 All Star games, along with the fact that he is the all-time leading scorer and third-leading rebounder, can't be left off a list of five all-time greats.
I just don't agree with Chuck. You can't have a top five without Kareem.
Then, of course, there's Wilt. I know he doesn't have as many rings, but I just can't dismiss some of the things he did.
He averaged 22 rebounds for his entire career, for crying out loud. He averaged more than 50 points a game.
Over a five-year stretch, he averaged over 40 points and almost 25 rebounds per game. When he was challenged about his passing, he led the league in assists as a center.
He is the only player in NBA history who has over his career led the league in scoring, rebounding and assists at least one time.
Finally, you have Bill Russell with his 10—one for the OTHER thumb—NBA championships.
Oh yeah, he's also the second-leading rebounder of all time. And the other thing, probably the greatest defensive player ever.
After that, you have a number of other players who are in the conversation, and Kobe is among them. In my opinion, though, there's just not enough yet to put him with those five.
His career isn't over yet. He could be there before it's all over, but he's not there yet.
I just don't see it, objectively or subjectively. On both counts, though, a strong case can be made for him being in the next five.
The players who can be argued to be six through 10 include the likes of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Bob Petit, Shaq and maybe a few others. It's just a matter of subjectivity.
