Is Kobe Bryant a "Winner"

[Redz]

This sidebar came up in the Beasley thread.  I think it's worth discussing on its own.  Here's the genesis of debate:

Out here in Big 12 land, no one is surprised: About Beasley, Chalmers or Arthur.

Some of us are funny about character. Strong character wins. See KG. Weak character doesn't. See Kobe.

OK, Kobe bugs the crap out of me and I don't like him, but how can we categorize him as not being a winner?  Because he lost in the Finals to the Celtics?

How many titles has he won without the Daddy?

Answer: None.

Anyone besides me remember Colorado?

So I guess my question is, what makes a guy a winner?  How many titles has Paul Pierce without KG or Ray Allen, or Big Baby for that matter?

As much as I can't stand Kobe, I have a hard time not considering him a "winner" in the basketball sense.  I'm of the opinion that the Lakers have overachieved each of the last two seasons, and probably 3.  Does not winning the Finals make you a loser?  Does winning the 3 Titles  being surrounded by talent and one of the best centers ever disqualify you as being a winner?

Is Big Baby Davis a winner because he was part of a championship? 

Is Tom Brady a loser because he's never won a Super Bowl without Adam Vinatieri? (ok, that one's a stretch), but really...What makes a winner in your eyes?

Set aside your feelings for Kobe for a second and just consider the raw question.  Is Kobe Bryant a winner?  I say yes.

[CelticsWhat35]

You can say what you want about Kobe Bryant's character, but the guy is a winner.  He's one of the greatest players of all time.  As dominant as Shaq was during their run, he needed help.  And Kobe was pretty [dang] good during their 3 championships.  We're not exactly talking about Jack Haley tagging along to pick up rings.  The guy dropped almost 30 ppg during the 2001 finals, and he came up huge in a game against the Pacers when Shaq had fouled out.  And we're talking about a guy that was 21 at the time.

All the talk about Kobe not winning anything without Shaq is garbage.  There's never been a championship team where one star has carried them to a title.

Kobe's no Michael Jordan, but he's still a pretty [dang] good player, and he's a winner...just not in 2008.   

[kw10]

As dominant as Shaq was during their run, he needed help.

As you said, there's never been a championship team with one star, of course he needed help.

All the talk about Kobe not winning anything without Shaq is garbage.  There's never been a championship team where one star has carried them to a title.

Same talk's been going on with KG(especially), PP and Ray prior to this season.

So only time will tell if Kobe is a winner or not, but I'll say not for now, maybe because I hate him, but also the fact that he's not the greatest team player or lockerroom guy in the world. (Or anywhere near it for that matter)

[CelticsWhat35]

As dominant as Shaq was during their run, he needed help.

As you said, there's never been a championship team with one star, of course he needed help.

All the talk about Kobe not winning anything without Shaq is garbage.  There's never been a championship team where one star has carried them to a title.

Same talk's been going on with KG(especially), PP and Ray prior to this season.

So only time will tell if Kobe is a winner or not, but I'll say not for now, maybe because I hate him, but also the fact that he's not the greatest team player or lockerroom guy in the world. (Or anywhere near it for that matter)

Time has already told, and that time was 2000-2003.  No matter what else happens in this guy's career, no one can take away his 3 rings, and he was the 2nd best player on the floor for each one of those rings.  To tell you the truth, I was more impressed by Kobe and Phil Jackson during the years without Shaq when he had a bad supporting cast, yet still found a way to make the playoffs.  The guy's a jerk and doesn't really care about his teammates, but he's put on some amazing performances in some big games over the years.

[Donoghus]

The guy has three World Championship rings and an Olympic Gold Medal.  That should be the end all, be all for the sake of the question posed.

Yes, he hasn't won a title without Shaq.  How many titles did Shaq have before Kobe?  Exactly.  They needed each other.  Shaq need D-Wade to get himself another ring.  Shaq has never done it alone, either. 

Still, he has those rings and a gold medal.  As much as you hate him, you really can't say that he can't win the big one because he has.   

Now you can make the argument that he hasn't been able to win since Shaq left and hasn't been able to win the big one "carrying the team by himself" but that shouldn't discount what he's already done in his career.

Look, I think he's a smug, self-centered pr*ck.  I hate the Lakers and hope he never wins another ring in his life.  However, when it comes to the winner question, I have to swallow my hatred and accept the fact that this guy has won in his career.

[jay_jay54]

on the court winner,off the court loser

[celticmaestro]

I've said for 3 years that Kobe Bryant is the best player on the NBA. I stand by that, even with the emergence of LeBron James.

He is a winner, but he needs help. Everyone needs someone, Jordan needed Rodman and Pippen. Bird needed McHale and Parish. Pierce, KG and Ray needed each other.

While poking fun at Kobe for failing to win without Shaq is great fun, we have to realise that this doesn't make him any less of a player.

[LB3533]

Of course Kobe is a winner, on the court and in the NBA.

If Kobe played like Eddie Jones or was flipping out like Nick Van Exel...Shaq wouldn't have 3 titles either.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think the issue with Kobe (if people want to perceive him as a loser) is that his performances in the NBA Finals have been pretty mediocre, compared to his regular season scoring averages.  The perception is that Kobe can't get it done in crunch time, especially in the last two Finals (against Boston and Detroit.)

I don't have time to look up the stats, but I've seen them before, and they're not overly pretty for the pro-Kobe crowd. 

[Reggie's Ghost]

This question was born out of the Beasley conversation, where people were saying that someone's bad attitude effects their legacy as a player.

Kobe may be unbelievably talented player, but his attitude towards his teammates and coaches seems get in the way.  Is Kobe a "winner"?  He's got all the hardware he'll need to prove his greatness, there's no denying his accomplishments, but his poor attitude towards his teammates holds his teams back, I believe.

It takes more than one guy to win it all, and Kobe can't inspire a team to rally behind him IMO.

[incoherent]

Kobe is a loser. No doubt in my mind.

[MBunge]

I think debating whether Kobe is a "winner" misses the point.  People with championship rings get to call themselves "winners".

The issues is, how high can Kobe be ranked on the All-Time Great list if he never wins a title without Shaq?  Idiots in the media were ready to declare him the equal of Jordan before the Cs stopped all that nonsense in the Finals.  I think if he doesn't win a Shaq-less ring, Kobe can't be put into that top tier.

Mike

[ManUp]

Kobe is a winner.

Can he win a title as the best player on a team? No, I don't think so, he's too much of a cancer.

A team with Kobe as the leader will never have the togetherness it takes to get it done, in my opinion.

[Roy Hobbs]

Kobe is a winner.

Can he win a title as the best player on a team? No, I don't think so, he's too much of a cancer.

A team with Kobe as the leader will never have the togetherness to get it done, in my opinion.

Interesting.  Can a cancer be a winner?  Does "winner" mean something more than just "somebody who has won"?  Is Jed Buechler more of a winner than, say, John Stockton?  It's an interesting question; I prefer to gauge players more in terms of leadership, etc., rather than strictly on win-loss record.

[ManUp]

Kobe is a winner.

Can he win a title as the best player on a team? No, I don't think so, he's too much of a cancer.

A team with Kobe as the leader will never have the togetherness to get it done, in my opinion.

Interesting.  Can a cancer be a winner?  Does "winner" mean something more than just "somebody who has won"?  Is Jed Buechler more of a winner than, say, John Stockton?  It's an interesting question; I prefer to gauge players more in terms of leadership, etc., rather than strictly on win-loss record.

I agree.

I personally feel Kobe is a winner strictly from the wins vs. losses perspective.

From leadership and winning qualities perspective he's one of the biggest losers in the league.