Kobe vs TMac

[Boris Badenov]

I think it's completely consistent with the thread. Why can't leadership, unselfishness or other intangibles be part of what defines a player's prime?

So is Steve Nash in his prime right now?

If ya go by assist numbers, he basically had the most in his career last season but I'm not sure anybody would say that 2012-13 was Kobe's prime. Nuh-uh. Prime would be when he was most athletic.

I can't believe you two are being serious. What I'm saying is, I would think, pretty uncontroversial. A player's prime is a combination of athletic ability, mental toughness, leadership, maturity, etc....no? That's why I said those are "part of" what defines a player's prime.

Generally athletic ability declines throughout a player's career but some of the other things can improve.

As one example, which would you guys have: 1987 Michael Jordan or 1996 Michael Jordan?

[rondoallaturca]

I can't believe you two are being serious. What I'm saying is, I would think, pretty uncontroversial. A player's prime is a combination of athletic ability, mental toughness, leadership, maturity, etc....no? That's why I said those are "part of" what defines a player's prime.

Generally athletic ability declines throughout a player's career but some of the other things can improve.

As one example, which would you guys have: 1987 Michael Jordan or 1996 Michael Jordan?

So did Allen Iverson and Ron Artest never have a prime? Making things like leadership, maturity, and intangibles as factors in determining a player's prime is a bit silly in my opinion. I just don't understand why you have a hard time settling with a widely accepted belief of what a player's prime is: the seasons in which a player is most productive.

And to answer your question, I would prefer 1996 Jordan, but Jordan is a pretty poor example because I don't think you can really label any part of his career his prime because he was so dominant his entire career (excluding Washington). He's the GOAT for a reason. For the record though, I actually think his best seasons were his 88-89 and 90-91 seasons.

[Boris Badenov]

I can't believe you two are being serious. What I'm saying is, I would think, pretty uncontroversial. A player's prime is a combination of athletic ability, mental toughness, leadership, maturity, etc....no? That's why I said those are "part of" what defines a player's prime.

Generally athletic ability declines throughout a player's career but some of the other things can improve.

As one example, which would you guys have: 1987 Michael Jordan or 1996 Michael Jordan?

So did Allen Iverson and Ron Artest never have a prime? Making things like leadership, maturity, and intangibles as factors in determining a player's prime is a bit silly in my opinion. I just don't understand why you have a hard time settling with a widely accepted belief of what a player's prime is: the seasons in which a player is most productive.

And to answer your question, I would prefer 1996 Jordan, but Jordan is a pretty poor example because I don't think you can really label any part of his career his prime because he was so dominant his entire career (excluding Washington). He's the GOAT for a reason. For the record though, I actually think his best seasons were his 88-89 and 90-91 seasons.

Sure, Artest and Iverson had primes. Why wouldn't they?

Anyway if you define a "prime" as when a player is most "productive," are you saying that intangibles have no part in determining the part of a player's career when he's most "productive"? What does "productive" mean, as you use the word, if it omits things like the ability to make your teammates better, or the mental toughness that comes with playoff experience?

Just to bring the conversation back to its starting point, you said that Kobe's "peak" seasons weren't all that great because he was at his most selfish then.

Setting aside whether that's true or not, I'm just saying I wouldn't then call those seasons his "peak."

And really even you are incorporating Kobe's intangibles into your evaluation of him, by noting that his selfishness was a downside.

[rondoallaturca]

I think the root of our disagreement lies within your severe mistake of confusing a player's prime as their overall value. In this thread, we are using a player's prime as one of many factors to THEN determine the player's overall value. In addition to being in their prime and their injury (factors I specifically listed), of course things like the intangibles you've listed will factor in as well. By me factoring in Kobe's selfish play, it was a testament to his overall value, and not his prime.

[Galeto]

T-Mac was right up there with Kobe and in fact, I think their career narratives could have flipped somewhat if they were in each other's position. 

With T-Mac, those Lakers teams headed by Shaq would have still been dominant and championship teams.  And before Bynum developed and Gasol arrived, Kobe had spent three seasons missing the playoffs and bouncing out in the first round, one in which, like McGrady, his team had been up 3 games to 1.  With a McGradyesque teams around him, Kobe didn't have any more success than McGrady himself.  He might not have experienced much playoff success had he not been lucky enough to have hall-of-fame teammates.  The kind of player he can be, very shot happy and difficult to play with, he would have been ripe to label as a loser, fairly or unfairly.

McGrady's back and then knee injuries did him in.  His back was flagged in pre-draft reports too so there was probably nothing he could have done to avoid his back problems.  At his peak, he was far superior in seamlessly blending his scoring and playmaking than Kobe.   

[Boris Badenov]

I think the root of our disagreement lies within your severe mistake of confusing a player's prime as their overall value. In this thread, we are using a player's prime as one of many factors to THEN determine the player's overall value. In addition to being in their prime and their injury (factors I specifically listed), of course things like the intangibles you've listed will factor in as well. By me factoring in Kobe's selfish play, it was a testament to his overall value, and not his prime.

Now I'm really confused. Here's how you started the thread:

If you could pick Kobe or T-Mac in their prime, without injuries being a concern, who would you choose, and why?

Nothing about "overall value" there. And now you're saying that "prime" and "overall value" are somehow different? And that a "prime" doesn't incorporate intangibles? Then why ask about players' primes? Are you comparing these guys at their athletic peaks, or when their numbers were the best, or something, and ignoring the other stuff? If so, why?

I dunno, I find all of that pretty mystifying, I view "prime" as "the year when the player would have added the most to his team's championship chances." But if you want to define it some other way, that's cool.

But back on topic...

I'll still stick with Kobe, mostly because I'm not convinced that a hypothetical injury-free McGrady would have had what it takes mentally. There's no way to prove that one way or the other, of course, because T-Mac's injuries prevented us from ever seeing him reach his full potential. But with Kobe we *know* he was capable of being the best player on a championship team.

[rondoallaturca]

I don't know what's so confusing about the question. Since T-Mac is no longer in the league today, and is far more injury-prone than Kobe, I needed to equalize those factors that play into determining who's the better player. I'm not sure why I actually need to specify overall value, because when someone asks who you'd prefer, naturally you're responding by who you think is better. It's pretty straightforward, and everyone else in this thread seems to have gotten the point except you.

[CelticsFan9]

Without question it's Kobe.  Yes their stats were similar, but Kobe has/had more of a cutthroat mentality and a desire to win than anything I've ever seen from TMac.

[nickagneta]

That this poll is as close as it is, for me, shows just how great Kobe is and better than T-Mac that he was, regardless of TMac's injury history. Why? Because the bias against Kobe for being

1. A Laker
2. A Laker great that beat the Celtics for a title
3. A man with a personality and ego that could cause people to dislike him
4. A man with what appeared for a while to have questionable morals

is huge here on the best and biggest Celtic internet blog in the world.

That Kobe could break even in this poll on Celticsblog shows me that this probably wouldn't even be close in most of the rest of the country, or world. I could be completely wrong on this theory, but I am not sure I am.

[Boris Badenov]

That this poll is as close as it is, for me, shows just how great Kobe is and better than T-Mac that he was, regardless of TMac's injury history. Why? Because the bias against Kobe for being

1. A Laker
2. A Laker great that beat the Celtics for a title
3. A man with a personality and ego that could cause people to dislike him
4. A man with what appeared for a while to have questionable morals

is huge here on the best and biggest Celtic internet blog in the world.

That Kobe could break even in this poll on Celticsblog shows me that this probably wouldn't even be close in most of the rest of the country, or world. I could be completely wrong on this theory, but I am not sure I am.

Yeah, all of those things are true for me and I still picked Kobe. I would even add one thing for me personally, which is that Kobe's style of play is one I really don't like at all.

[rondoallaturca]

That this poll is as close as it is, for me, shows just how great Kobe is and better than T-Mac that he was, regardless of TMac's injury history. Why? Because the bias against Kobe for being

1. A Laker
2. A Laker great that beat the Celtics for a title
3. A man with a personality and ego that could cause people to dislike him
4. A man with what appeared for a while to have questionable morals

is huge here on the best and biggest Celtic internet blog in the world.

That Kobe could break even in this poll on Celticsblog shows me that this probably wouldn't even be close in most of the rest of the country, or world. I could be completely wrong on this theory, but I am not sure I am.

Bias is definitely something to consider, but at the same time there are a lot of very knowledgeable basketball minds here that approach every discussion with a reasonable viewpoint. I've already ousted myself as a former Lakers fan who still thinks T-Mac is better, and while I think Kobe is overrated, it's not because he was a thorn in the C's sides the past few years. I never use team allegiance to formulate any of my beliefs; I mean, I think Lebron and Bosh are really underappreciated even though they play for our rivals. I'm also not going to overrate our own players and say Bradley is going to be a stud. I'm sure there are a lot more here who evaluate players similarly.

[CelticConcourse]

That Kobe could break even in this poll on Celticsblog shows me that this probably wouldn't even be close in most of the rest of the country, or world. I could be completely wrong on this theory, but I am not sure I am.

I don't know about you or others, but I'm actually a huge Kobe fan and I love his game/style/personality. When I watch the Lakers play against anyone other than the Celtics, I root for him to score! I think he's awesome and I like him as a person/player. I believe there are others on this forum who share a similar sentiment. Probably not a majority though.

On the contrary, I like TMac just as much. I like them equally to be honest. They're very similar in my mind!

(P.S. Oh what TWill coulda been!)

[Mazingerz]

in a perfect world barring the dumb luck Tmac was given,

Id pick Tmac over Kobe;

[D.o.s.]

I picked Tracy McGrady. Sans injuries, I think he could've been a better basketball player than Kobe. He was certainly right in the conversation before the injuries derailed his career.

I've also got a grudging appreciation for Kobe, enhanced by his most recent injury. Injuries suck, even when they happen to the Lakers.

[indeedproceed]

Tracy McGrady was in a poll in like 05 or something, and was rated by NBA players as the toughest 1 on 1 check in the league.

I've always thought he was the best offensive player I've ever seen, and so, so underrated as a passer, rebounder and defender when he was actually allowed to focus there.

The problem was that we'll never know how McGrady would've fared with players of Shaq or even Gasol's caliber. Yao was a monster (no literally, he's an actual monster. Nobody who is that big should be that agile and skilled), but he could never ever stay healthy enough long enough at the same time as McGrady. With those guys, on paper I like McGrady, but his attitude would've been the X factor. While his physical gifts at his prime were probably better than Kobe's, there was never a time when Kobe's attitude as a competitor didn't dwarf McGrady's.