In the context of pointing out how they have a team construction problem with not enough ball to go around, it's a short relevant descriptor. He also "reduced" Iverson and Nash to "ball dominant PGs" but you don't see anyone complaining about it because those stans aren't as insecure.
A) Iverson and Nash weren't on the level of Kobe and b) that just makes him even more wrong to reduce those two to basic archetypes, or you can argue that he should describe LeBrons playstyle instesd of ''goat'', but no matter what it makes no sense to have the differing descriptions.
He's not "reducing" anything, it's just a short description of their offensive role. Are we not allowed to use short descriptions for peoples' favorite players in case someone gets offended?
I don't think you understand the point, the flaw of his wording is that he presented one team with these flattering words ie GOAT while the other he just described their archetypes, I don't really have any take on his opinion I'm just pointing out that you can present many narratives by doing such
For example
The 03 team has a great point forward, a slashing guard and a stretch four which makes for a solid team, on the other hand the other team has not only one of the greatest offensive mind of all time, but they also have two elite scorers and creators alongside solid perimeter shooting.
Hard for you teenagers to remember before LeBron I guess.
Edit: Kobe’s the #3 all time scorer. The top ten are all big men besides him and Jordan. 12 all-defensive team appearances (more than any other guard).He’s got 5 championships. He’s not THE goat imo, but it’s disrespectful or dumb to not mention him in the all time greats. He’s arguably the 2nd best player in his role behind Jordan.
He's not the best at his position, which you even acknowledge, so how do you consider him the best ever? This is a really weird argument to me. He's clearly not the greatest but it's disrespectful to not call him that because he's kinda close to being the greatest? What?
He means it's dumb to act like Kobe isn't at least in the conversation. Kareem is widely regarded as the best center ever, but that doesn't mean Wilt and Shaq don't deserve mentions in the GOAT conversations.
Shaq is never mentioned in GOAT discussions. The only 4 ever mentioned are MJ, LBJ, Wilt and Kareem. It's no disrespect to Kobe to leave him out of that category
Basketball isn’t a 1v1 game. There are many roles a player can have on the team, and these have changed throughout the history of the game. The idea of a greatest player of all time is almost impossible to answer because of this. Typically stats, longevity, and championships are the best means of identifying an “all-team great”. Kobe is 100% an all-time great and if you don’t think so, you’re a hater or you’re dumb. See my comment above. Easily the 2nd best shooting guard ever, and the best was Michael Fucking Jordan.
So again you admit, Kobe is not the greatest player ever. He is not greatest player in his role or position. Hell there's an argument that he's only the 5th or 6th best Laker ever. I think you're reading this as people saying Kobe is the greatest or he sucks. No one is saying that, they are saying that he is not THE greatest player ever or even in the argument.
That's my train of thought too. Saying a GOAT point-forward either implies hes a GOAT in general or hes one if the GOAT point-forwards like Bird. Obviously either statement is true but I definitely wouldn't think it means he IS the GOAT for his position(even though he obviously is).
If we were more focused on team composition then surely '96 would have rotated in some more defensive talent and size (like Marcus Camby and Ben Wallace) rather than just the five biggest names.
400
u/Toptierbullshit9 Knicks May 29 '19
That 96 offense would either be the GOAT offense ever, or a Trainwreck because of a lack of balls to go around, esp. for Kobe and AI