Vote: Better All-Time, Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird?

[PlayTheGame]

My friend and I are disputing who's the better all-time player, everything included (skills, what they contributed to the team, how they were as a teammate, championships, accomplishments, anything you can think of), Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird.

I believe all things considered it is Kobe Bryant.

Please vote and feel free to discuss your choice.

 

[Harthan]

Bird, hands down. Better shooter, better rebounder, better at assists, better at steals, better at blocks, better offensively, better defensively, and more valuable to his team. Bird is the better player by every metric.

 

[PlayTheGame]

but kobe has a handful of shiny rings

 

[Harthan]

but kobe has a handful of shiny rings

Kobe can have all the rings he likes, any legitimate number you can possibly pick will show you that anything Kobe can do, Bird did it better. Having championship rings means essentially nothing in terms of how good any individual player is.

 

[klunderbunker]

but kobe has a handful of shiny rings

Bird has three to Kobe's five. Three rings isn't exactly a failure of a career.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Bird has three to Kobe's five. Three rings isn't exactly a failure of a career.

Sounds pretty shitty to me.

 

[klunderbunker]

Sounds pretty shitty to me.

I think the argument is over then: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I think the argument is over then: you have no idea what you're talking about.

The argument is not over. It was obviously a joke.

 

[Khalifa]

Bird, hands down. Better shooter, better rebounder, better at assists, better at steals, better at blocks, better offensively, better defensively, and more valuable to his team. Bird is the better player by every metric.

Bird was a better three point shooter. Mid range/post up would be probably go to Kobe. Bird was probably a better passer but when Kobe decides he wants to pass he can make some amazing passes. Isn't Kobe in the top ten for steals of all time? I don't know how you can say Bird was better offensively when Kobe is 4th of all time on the scoring list and scored 81 points in a game. Kobe Bryant is a 11 time (correct me if I am wrong) NBA FIRST(!) all defensive team player while Larry only got second all defensive 3 times. More can argue that Kobe is more valuable to Lakers than what Bird is to Celtics. Without Kobe Shaq wouldn't have 3 rings. Without Kobe Pau wouldn't have any rings. Kobe took his shit Lakers team to the fplayoffs to go up 3-1 against the Phoenix Suns who were the best team back then. If you took Kobe away from the Lakers they would be nothing because frankly Pau sucks now and Bynum is still young. Where as Bird still had McHale and Parris who are better then they had Ainge!

The defensive rule has changed as well. Defense was much easier back then for the offensive players to work around, where as Kobe can get double/triple teams whenever now. I am going Kobe as the better player.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Khalifa makes some good points. To say that Bird has better numbers across the board is overwhelmingly incorrect. Kobe tops Bird in quite a few categories, quite a few. And Kobe's not done yet- another thing you have to factor in. He'll continue to positively add to his career and legacy. To prove my findings, take a look at a stat-by-stat comparison of the two:

http://www.basketball-reference.com...um=1&p1=birdla01&y1=1992&p2=bryanko01&y2=2012

 

[Khalifa]

That's what I forgot to add. Kobe is more durable.

 

[Harthan]

Bird was a better three point shooter. Mid range/post up would be probably go to Kobe.

Irrelevant. Look at the combined statistics. Bird's true shooting percentage and effective field goal percentage are .564 and .514, Bryant's are .555 and .487, respectively. Bird is objectively a better shooter.

Bird was probably a better passer but when Kobe decides he wants to pass he can make some amazing passes.

Not sure how this is relevant, except perhaps for assists, which Bird did better than Kobe (assist percentage of 24.7 to Kobe's 24.0)

Isn't Kobe in the top ten for steals of all time?

No, he isn't (19 overall). But he has 1696 to Bird's 1556, but Bird's steal percentage is 2.2, while Kobe's is 2.1. I'll concede this category as a wash, because while Bird was the more effective stealer, Kobe is almost as good and he's completed more.

I don't know how you can say Bird was better offensively when Kobe is 4th of all time on the scoring list and scored 81 points in a game.

Irrelevant. Larry Bird's offensive rating is 115, Kobe's is 112. Bird was objectively better at scoring than Kobe is, it's just that Kobe's played longer and taken more opportunities. Given 100 possessions apiece, Bird scores more points than Kobe.

Kobe Bryant is a 11 time (correct me if I am wrong) NBA FIRST(!) all defensive team player while Larry only got second all defensive 3 times.

Irrelevant (are you sensing a trend?). Opinions of the voters to that particularly honor are opinions, not facts. Bird has a lower defensive rating than Kobe, i.e., he allowed fewer points per 100 possessions than Kobe does.

More can argue that Kobe is more valuable to Lakers than what Bird is to Celtics.

Not really. Bird has a far greater win share per 48 minutes than does Kobe. He was, objectively, a more valuable player.

Without Kobe Shaq wouldn't have 3 rings.

Ready to have your day ruined? Kobe's win shares per 48 minutes over the time frame he played with Shaq is .183, while Shaq's was a staggering .241. Shaq was far and away a more valuable player to the Lakers than was Kobe.

Without Kobe Pau wouldn't have any rings.

I really, really hate to do this to you, but Kobe's win share per 48 minutes during his time with Pau is .187...Pau's, .212. That is to say, Pau Gasol was more valuable than Kobe during that time frame.

Kobe took his shit Lakers team to the fplayoffs to go up 3-1 against the Phoenix Suns who were the best team back then.

Pretty sure I proved this objectively false in the above.

If you took Kobe away from the Lakers they would be nothing because frankly Pau sucks now and Bynum is still young. Where as Bird still had McHale and Parris who are better then they had Ainge!

Bynum and Pau are both, at present, more valuable to the Lakers than is Kobe. They would not do well without him, no, but they would do worse if they lost Pau or Bynum.

The defensive rule has changed as well. Defense was much easier back then for the offensive players to work around, where as Kobe can get double/triple teams whenever now

I'm not sure what you're arguing to me here. You're saying offense has gotten better since Bird's time, and yet Bird still put up better numbers than Kobe? That seriously seems to put your case in jeopardy.

I am going Kobe as the better player.

I'll go with Kobe as potentially the most overrated player in the history of basketball who isn't even among the best 50 players of all time, let alone better than Larry Bird. He isn't even better than Pau Gasol.

There is one man, and one man only who was a better basketball player than Larry Bird, and his name was Michael Jordan.

EDIT: For now, anyway. LeBron will almost certainly outdo Bird and probably Jordan by the time he's through.

 

[Khalifa]

Irrelevant. Look at the combined statistics. Bird's true shooting percentage and effective field goal percentage are .564 and .514, Bryant's are .555 and .487, respectively. Bird is objectively a better shooter.

Hmmm. Yeah I will concede this battle. I was more referring to Kobes fade aways but then again that's only one shot.

Not sure how this is relevant, except perhaps for assists, which Bird did better than Kobe (assist percentage of 24.7 to Kobe's 24.0)

How is this not relevant? You said Bird is a better passer. Kobe can give some awesome passes which obviously mean he is quite a good passer doesn't it?

Irrelevant. Larry Bird's offensive rating is 115, Kobe's is 112. Bird was objectively better at scoring than Kobe is, it's just that Kobe's played longer and taken more opportunities. Given 100 possessions apiece, Bird scores more points than Kobe.

Again how is it irrelevant. You are bringing up stats. Bird never scored 81 in a game. Bird never got 4 straight 50 point games. Bird is not a better offensive player than Kobe. I don't care what you say.

Irrelevant (are you sensing a trend?). Opinions of the voters to that particularly honor are opinions, not facts. Bird has a lower defensive rating than Kobe, i.e., he allowed fewer points per 100 possessions than Kobe does.

HOW IS IT IRRELEVANT! Kobe Bryant 9 (my bad) defensive all nba team awards. You don't get that for being being a bad defensive player. I will post a video if you really want me to show you his defensive skills.


Not really. Bird has a far greater win share per 48 minutes than does Kobe. He was, objectively, a more valuable player.

Ready to have your day ruined? Kobe's win shares per 48 minutes over the time frame he played with Shaq is .183, while Shaq's was a staggering .241. Shaq was far and away a more valuable player to the Lakers than was Kobe.

Oh don't get me wrong, Shaq was more important, however Kobe was needed for Shaq to win the championship, then Kobe became more valuable during 03/04- now.

I really, really hate to do this to you, but Kobe's win share per 48 minutes during his time with Pau is .187...Pau's, .212. That is to say, Pau Gasol was more valuable than Kobe during that time frame.

Come on man, I can't believe you just said Pau is more valuabe. Really? Does that mean Lamar Odom is more valuable than both?

Bynum and Pau are both, at present, more valuable to the Lakers than is Kobe. They would not do well without him, no, but they would do worse if they lost Pau or Bynum.

So Pau, who until the other day never had 10 straight double double games is more valuable than the NBA's most valuable player? Bynum has never even put together a full season so don't even say he is more valuable.

I'm not sure what you're arguing to me here. You're saying offense has gotten better since Bird's time, and yet Bird still put up better numbers than Kobe? That seriously seems to put your case in jeopardy.

No, I will admit I did a shit job at wording it. I meant that it is a lot better for the defense to help stop a single player in this age than what it was back then. I still didn't word it properly haha. Okay all I am trying to say is that it would be easier for Kobe to score then compared to now.

I'll go with Kobe as potentially the most overrated player in the history of basketball who isn't even among the best 50 players of all time, let alone better than Larry Bird. He isn't even better than Pau Gasol.

Harthan I like you man. BUT THIS IS SERIOUSLY THE MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER SAID!

There is one man, and one man only who was a better basketball player than Larry Bird, and his name was Michael Jordan.

And Magic .

 

[Harthan]

How is this not relevant? You said Bird is a better passer. Kobe can give some awesome passes which obviously mean he is quite a good passer doesn't it?

There's no objective way to measure "good passer". I don't see how it can be a relevant evaluator of a player's performance if I can't measure it.

Again how is it irrelevant. You are bringing up stats. Bird never scored 81 in a game. Bird never got 4 straight 50 point games. Bird is not a better offensive player than Kobe. I don't care what you say.

You're not giving me statistics, you're giving me data points. Kobe scoring 81 points in a single game, or more accurately, in x amount of minutes played, is a data point, and not even a valuable one at that. I'm more interested in how effective he was at shooting the ball during the minutes he played. Arguably, during that game, probably pretty effective, but again, it's a single data point.

HOW IS IT IRRELEVANT! Kobe Bryant 9 (my bad) defensive all nba team awards. You don't get that for being being a bad defensive player. I will post a video if you really want me to show you his defensive skills.

I explained how it's irrelevant. People with opinions vote on those honors, usually without any statistical analysis. The numbers are what matter.

Come on man, I can't believe you just said Pau is more valuabe. Really? Does that mean Lamar Odom is more valuable than both?

He is, objectively. Over the time he and Kobe have played together, Pau has more total win shares and a higher win shares per 48 minutes, indicating he is not only more valuable, but more efficient.

So Pau, who until the other day never had 10 straight double double games is more valuable than the NBA's most valuable player? Bynum has never even put together a full season so don't even say he is more valuable.

A double double, again, is a data point. And also not a valuable one. More interesting is the effectiveness of the shooting and the rebounding.

Over the entire time Bynum and Kobe have played together, no, Bynum was neither more valuable nor more efficient. In the current season, however, he is more efficient, and a theoretical loss of Kobe Bryant would increase his minutes and probably make him more valuable.

No, I will admit I did a shit job at wording it. I meant that it is a lot better for the defense to help stop a single player in this age than what it was back then. I still didn't word it properly haha. Okay all I am trying to say is that it would be easier for Kobe to score then compared to now.

I doubt this is particularly relevant, but I can look at other metrics and prove Bird is still a better player.

Harthan I like you man. BUT THIS IS SERIOUSLY THE MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER SAID!

No, Kobe really is terribly overrated. He's the most drastic example of a guy with amazing conventional numbers and dramatic performances but who serious statistical analysis do not bear out as truly being elite.

 

[Khalifa]

Before you post back just take a read at this and then tell me Bird is a better offensive player than Kobe and Pau is a better overall player..

On January 22, 2006, Bryant scored a career-high 81 points in a victory against the Toronto Raptors.[78][79] In addition to breaking the previous franchise record of 71 set by Elgin Baylor, Bryant's 81-point game was the second highest point total in NBA history, surpassed only by Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game in 1962.[80] In that same month, Bryant also became the first player since 1964 to score 45 points or more in four consecutive games, joining Chamberlain and Baylor as the only players ever to do so.[81] For the month of January, Bryant averaged 43.4 points per game,[82] the eighth highest single month scoring average in NBA history and highest for any player other than Chamberlain.[83] By the end of the 2005–06 season, Bryant set Lakers single-season franchise records for most 40-point games (27) and most points scored (2,832).[84] He won the league's scoring title for the first time by averaging 35.4 points per game. Bryant finished in fourth place in the voting for the 2006 NBA Most Valuable Player Award, but received 22 first place votes—second only to winner Steve Nash.[85] The Los Angeles Lakers posted a 45–37 record, an eleven-game improvement over the previous season, and the entire squad seemed to be clicking.[86]

On March 16, Bryant scored a season-high 65 points in a home game against the Portland Trail Blazers, which helped end the Lakers 7-game losing streak. This was the second best scoring performance of his 11-year career.[95] The following game, Bryant recorded 50 points against the Minnesota Timberwolves,[96] after which he scored 60 points in a road win against the Memphis Grizzlies—becoming the second Laker to score three straight 50-plus point games, a feat not seen since Michael Jordan last did it in 1987.[97] The only other Laker to do so was Elgin Baylor, who also scored 50+ in three consecutive contests in December 1962.[97] In the following day, in a game against the New Orleans Hornets, Bryant scored 50 points, making him the second player in NBA history to have 4 straight 50 point games behind Wilt Chamberlain, who is the all-time leader with seven consecutive 50 point games twice.[98] Bryant finished the year with a total of ten 50-plus point games,[99] becoming the only player beside Wilt Chamberlain in 1961–62 and 1962–63 to do so in one season. He also won his second straight scoring title that season.[100] Throughout the 2006–07 season, Bryant's jersey became the top selling NBA jersey in the United States and China.[101] A number of journalists have attributed the improved sales to Bryant's new number, as well as his continuing All-Star performance on the court.[102][103] In the 2007 NBA Playoffs, the Lakers were once again eliminated in the first round by the

He is a prolific scorer, averaging 25.3 points per game for his career, along with 5.3 rebounds, 4.7 assists, and 1.5 steals (as of the end of the 2010–2011 regular season).[193] He is known for his ability to create shots for himself and is a standout three-point shooter, sharing the single-game NBA record for three pointers made with twelve.[194] Bryant is often cited as one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA,[195] though his 45.4% career field goal average is considered moderate. He utilizes his wide array of moves and shots to elude defenders and score from virtually anywhere on the floor. Some of Bryant's best moves are his turnaround jump shot, and his ability to post up his defenders and score with a fadeaway jumpshot. Chris Ballard, a Sports Illustrated NBA writer, describes a "jab step-and-pause" as a move Bryant uses where he jabs his non-pivot foot forward to let the defender relax and instead of bringing the jab foot back, he pushes off it and drive around his opponent to get to the basket.[196]

Aside from his scoring ability, he has established himself as a standout defender, having made the All-Defensive first or second team eleven of the last twelve seasons.[1] Bryant has also been noted being one of the premier clutch performers in the NBA.[197] Bryant has been selected by NBA GM surveys as the player they most want taking the shot with the game on the line.[198][neutrality is disputed] Both Sporting News and TNT named Bryant the NBA player of the 2000s decade.[199][200]

All from Wikipedia.

 

[Harthan]

What you've quoted is just restatement of things you've already said, and which I've already proven objectively false.

EDIT: Also, I haven't yet said Pau is a better player than Kobe, just a more valuable one to the Lakers. I'm not particularly interested in checking the numbers out now, as I've done quite enough number crunching on basketball players for the night.

 

[Khalifa]

There's no objective way to measure "good passer". I don't see how it can be a relevant evaluator of a player's performance if I can't measure it.




You're not giving me statistics, you're giving me data points. Kobe scoring 81 points in a single game, or more accurately, in x amount of minutes played, is a data point, and not even a valuable one at that. I'm more interested in how effective he was at shooting the ball during the minutes he played. Arguably, during that game, probably pretty effective, but again, it's a single data point.




I explained how it's irrelevant. People with opinions vote on those honors, usually without any statistical analysis. The numbers are what matter.




He is, objectively. Over the time he and Kobe have played together, Pau has more total win shares and a higher win shares per 48 minutes, indicating he is not only more valuable, but more efficient.



A double double, again, is a data point. And also not a valuable one. More interesting is the effectiveness of the shooting and the rebounding.

Over the entire time Bynum and Kobe have played together, no, Bynum was neither more valuable nor more efficient. In the current season, however, he is more efficient, and a theoretical loss of Kobe Bryant would increase his minutes and probably make him more valuable.



I doubt this is particularly relevant, but I can look at other metrics and prove Bird is still a better player.



No, Kobe really is terribly overrated. He's the most drastic example of a guy with amazing conventional numbers and dramatic performances but who serious statistical analysis do not bear out as truly being elite.

I'm not even going to bother anymore. If you can do amazing passes then you can obviously pass pretty good. If you can score 81 points in a game you are obviously a brilliant offensive player. If you can become the fourth best scorer ever in NBA history you must be doing pretty good. If Pau is so much more better the Grizzlies would of been a good team. If Bird was better he would have better numbers. I don't care what you say. Numbers do mean something. Let me put it to you this way. If Lebron was only averaging 15 points, 4 rebounds and 5 assists a game would be be considered as good as he is? Answer is no. I am now done and if you think Pau is better than Kobe and Kobe is not even in the top 50 of NBA greats then you my friend have never seen basketball.

 

[Harthan]

I'm not even going to bother anymore. If you can do amazing passes then you can obviously pass pretty good. If you can score 81 points in a game you are obviously a brilliant offensive player. If you can become the fourth best scorer ever in NBA history you must be doing pretty good. If Pau is so much more better the Grizzlies would of been a good team. If Bird was better he would have better numbers. I don't care what you say. Numbers do mean something. Let me put it to you this way. If Lebron was only averaging 15 points, 4 rebounds and 5 assists a game would be be considered as good as he is? Answer is no. I am now done and if you think Pau is better than Kobe and Kobe is not even in the top 50 of NBA greats then you my friend have never seen basketball.

I encourage you to take a course in statistics, and pay attention thoroughly, and perhaps you will have a better appreciation for my argument.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Harthan, I don't know how you can argue that the Lakers would be better off with Bynum and Gasol sans Kobe (if you were to take one player away), compared to taking away Bynum or Gasol instead. Kobe is the literal and figurative captain of the Lakers. If you took him off the team, their best player becomes Pau Gasol, who relies on someone getting him the ball. Without a PG (and now a SG), he becomes a much more limited player- see his peformance on the Grizzlies and how underwhelming that team was.

And to say Bynum would be more valuable is almost like saying Greg Oden is the most valuable player of the Blazers- both are constantly injured and haven't put together full seasons. To believe someone's the MVP, they must be consistent for the team. Guys like Bynum and Oden, while spectacular in bursts, are the exact opposite of consistency.

You and Khalifa both have valid points in the Bird/Kobe argument in terms of stats, but I have to disagree on your notion that Kobe isn't clearly the MVP of the Lakers right now. I'm also not sure how you can assert that Kobe is overrated and not one of the absolute best of all time... you yourself said that he puts up the stats. Combine that with the fact that he's a court leader, a fan favorite, a perennial all-star, a face of the NBA, and, most importantly, a 5-time world champion (and numerous Finals MVP) with room for maybe one or two more in the future....... what more could you ask for/what makes him overrated? Seems like he has all the pieces of the puzzle to me. If he's missing something, I don't see it.

 

[Harthan]

Harthan, I don't know how you can argue that the Lakers would be better off with Bynum and Gasol sans Kobe (if you were to take one player away), compared to taking away Bynum or Gasol instead. Kobe is the literal and figurative captain of the Lakers. If you took him off the team, their best player becomes Pau Gasol, who relies on someone getting him the ball. Without a PG (and now a SG), he becomes a much more limited player- see his peformance on the Grizzlies and how underwhelming that team was.

Win shares are calculated to be isolated from the team, so, actually, Gasol's performance would continue regardless. I don't doubt that an initial drop in quality would be expected, because the play style of the Lakers is completely centered around Kobe, but a Lakers team without Bryant would rapidly adjust and be better than a team with Kobe sans Gasol. I made an error in my conclusions on Bynum, though - Bynum is more efficient but less valuable to the Lakers, so the ideal system would be losing Bynum, if we have to drop one of three. But a team with Gasol and Bynum is more preferable to a team with Gasol and Kobe.

I'm not just conjecturing this, this is hard data we're speaking of. I understand your resistance - it's the same that everyone in baseball had at first to sabermetrics. Facts are facts though. Gasol is contributing more value and is a more efficient player than Kobe Bryant, and Bynum is a more efficient player but less valuable.

It's doubtful Pau without Kobe would regress. Pau's performance has improved since coming to the Lakers, but I'm measuring that in terms of value and efficiency based on win shares and WS/48. Pau didn't improve because of Kobe, or because of any other player - his performance on the Lakers contributed what it contributed independent of anyone around him. Teams succeed as an aggregate of individual performances. Pau came to LA and played better. Simple as that.

You and Khalifa both have valid points in the Bird/Kobe argument in terms of stats, but I have to disagree on your notion that Kobe isn't clearly the MVP of the Lakers right now. I'm also not sure how you can assert that Kobe is overrated and not one of the absolute best of all time... you yourself said that he puts up the stats. Combine that with the fact that he's a court leader, a fan favorite, a perennial all-star, a face of the NBA, and, most importantly, a 5-time world champion (and numerous Finals MVP) with room for maybe one or two more in the future....... what more could you ask for/what makes him overrated? Seems like he has all the pieces of the puzzle to me. If he's missing something, I don't see it.

The statistics are available. Go to Basketball Reference and look at them. Any objective viewing of Kobe's statistics compared to dozens of other players would demonstrate that he was simply not as good as a wide number of other players. He's drastically overrated. He's a Hall of Fame caliber guard, but he is not even close to the best of all time.

Also, I would like to point out that Chris Paul was the rightful MVP in 2007-2008, mostly because I would like to be spiteful to Kobe Bryant who doesn't deserve half of what he's got.

 

[DaeChi]

PlayTheGame you have to take into consideration the fact that Kobe Bryant currently has 6961 more minutes than Larry Bird does. However, when you look at the true percentages that you yourself provided you will clearly see that Larry Bird has relatively high numbers comparitively speaking to Kobe Bryant. When you truly analyze the tables that once again, you provided, you will see that Bird has a higher rate of shooting, offenseive rebounds, defensive rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks.

You will also find that Larry Bird has higher rates in both offensive rating and defensive rating. Thus the numbers clearly show that Larry Bird was the most efficient player of the two.

The only real arguement you have truly made for Kobe Bryant is that he is more durable than Larry Bird. However when we take into consideration that Larry Bird played 4 years of college that Kobe Bryant did not, Larry Bird has currently played 2 more years than Bryant has played. We'll also find that Larry Bird led the league in minutes per game twice, something Kobe Bryant has never done; and seeing his age never will do.

Thus case and point Larry Bird > Kobe Bryant.

 

[Davi323]

Oh don't get me wrong, Shaq was more important, however Kobe was needed for Shaq to win the championship, then Kobe became more valuable during 03/04- now.

Going to point out the obvious:

Couldn't it also be said that Shaq was needed for Kobe to win the first three championships? In fact, this statement is more likely, considering you just stated that Shaq was actually more important to those titles than Kobe was.

Arguing about who would have won what title without so and so is pointless. Kobe and Shaq needed each other, Phil Jackson, and everyone else on the team, just like Bird needed Parrish, McHale, and the rest of the Celtics. You might as well claim that all of Magic Johnsons' NBA titles were just because of James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I am not saying that Bird is better than Kobe, just objecting to the whole "Shaq needed Kobe" bullshit. Teams win championships, not individual players, so title counting is a stupid measuring stick when comparing Byrant to Bird. Both have multiple titles, both played with a couple of HOF caliber players surrounding them.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Bird was a better shooter.

Kobe is a better defender, more athletic, more explosive, faster, quicker, jumps higher, etc. Maybe Bird was a better passer, but Kobe's no bum when it comes to moving the ball (when he feels he has some worth passing to). Also, Kobe is underrated as a leader. He's won a few without Shaq, so the guy can lead. Better scorer, too, obviously.

I love Bird, but Kobe is probably one of the two or three most talented players ever. Bird's top five or seven, but I don't think he's Kobe.

 

[Stormtrooper]

It's Apples and oranges. They are 2 different types of basketball players from 2 completely different eras. I think everyone would agree that you would be happy with either one on your team.

I would prefer Kobe, but that's just personal opinion. The main reason I would prefer Kobe is that he has been much more durable and has had a longer career.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

Kobe's better.