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

Publish date: 2024-05-03

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.

ncG1vNJzZmien6fCrr%2BNsKmeq6Shsru7zZ5lnKedZMGpvsSam6xnpqTBpnnBnqutnaJirq24jK2gpp1doLyjsYybqbKZnql6sL6MpZirqqlir6q%2Bw2dpaW5kZX9w