Why shouldn't Kobe be considered the best ever?


A group for my old little league recently popped up on Facebook and it’s only a matter of time before the “my generation was better than your generation” argument starts and the entire city begins to weigh in. That’s just how my hometown is. Bar fights break out over things like this. West Haven children memorize City Champions first, and then if there’s time, they get to the Presidents of the United States. In all seriousness, I’m pretty sure the City Council has devoted an entire meeting to discussing the fastest pitchers in history.

(Note: My name wouldn’t appear on that list, but I did have a nice curveball.)

It’s important to note that the debate is never over the best team. If you won a championship, then you won a championship and no one can ever take that away from you. It’s always about the players who were in your league at the time you played. So take the best five players from my time versus the best five players from your time and then we get into it. That’s why fights happen. Because I’m not just defending my honor, I’m defending the honor of guys I haven’t seen in 20 years.

These arguments exist, of course, because no one wants to slight their own generation. It’s not just little league teams, although in small towns that might be the most pressing issue. It’s television shows and music and movies and life in general. I find these debates laughable. It’s not that I hate history, but I’m sorry, I’ll take the advancements in my time over any other era in history. Card catalogs sucked. Newspapers ads sucked. Encyclopedias sucked, and they were heavy. Amazon, Craig’s List and Google win. Every time.

And I haven’t even mentioned DVR and On the Go products yet.

The reason I bring all of this up is because Kobe Bryant just became the all time leading scorer in Los Angeles Lakers history, which has led the sports media to debate whether or not he is the greatest player in franchise history.

Across the board, the answer has been no.

Depending on who you talk to, the top three seems to be some combination of Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain. The old white guys usually put Jerry West in there and Elgin Baylor typically gets thrown in the conversation as well. Only then does Kobe join the party. No matter where he ranks, it’s pretty impressive to be included with those guys at all. But why can’t he be considered the best ever? Why is it so hard to put a guy playing in a far more competitive NBA atop the list?

He’s the best player on the planet at a time when basketball players are the best athletes on the planet. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago, let alone 40. He’s bigger, stronger and faster than his predecessors and he’s playing in a league that is significantly bigger, stronger and faster than it has ever been. The old guard likes to complain about expansion diluting the NBA. I choose to believe $100 million dollar contracts made it more competitive. The money made basketball more desirable to young people over the past two decades, which has made the talent pool that much larger.

Sports, and this goes back to whole little league topic, is one the few places where you can’t even have a civil conversation comparing past to present. It gets too emotional. For example, you might say Happy Days is the greatest show in history, but you have to concede that it would have been nicer to watch in high definition. There is no concession in sports. People will always argue that their favorite player growing up was a lot better than anyone playing today.

Which is why in a column praising Kobe for becoming the all time leading scorer in team history, Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke still chose to criticize him for being too much of a ball hog. Whatever it takes to put the stars of today down, right?

But guess what?

Kobe is HD. He is the iPod. He is the internet.

Evolution wins.


Anonymous 7:02 AM, February 04, 2010  

Ridiculous. If those guys had Kobe's conditioning can you imagine the numbers they would have put up?

Bob 3:46 PM, February 04, 2010  

But that's Dan's point. We have no idea what a guy from the 60's would do in the NBA today. But we know Bryant would be the best player of any era.

dad 10:33 PM, February 04, 2010  

Those who forget the history or the past, Are DOOMED to repeat it. In many cases the regular folk of today could not have existed in another time, and vice versa. The point will always be,,, "mine's is bigger,better and yours sucks"

from somebody old

Anonymous 11:05 AM, February 05, 2010  

I love that argument of if Player X trained like the players today he would have put up astronomical numbers. That only makes sense if you say the rest of the players did not train like the players today. Yes, if Wilt Chamberlain trained like the players today and still faced the competition of his day, he would score 100 every night. By the same token, if you put Kobe of today on the court in the 70's, 80's, etc he would probably drop 80 every game. But if Wilt Chamberlain trained like the players today and played against the players today, he would most likely compare to a Tim Duncan. Hall of Fame? Absolutely. But he would NEVER NEVER NEVER sniff 100 points in a game. The fact is a player's career performance is relative to the era he played in. I mean let's face it if you watch a basketball game on ESPN classic it resembles a 40+ league. A game today looks more like football players playing a game of pick up.

SeatGeek 3:34 PM, April 02, 2010  

I am fond of the end lines of your article:

"Kobe is HD. He is the iPod. He is the internet.

Evolution wins."

But with that logic, isn't Lebron the peak of basketball evolution?

With that said, I still like to put Jordan on top.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP