Transcription
There're things I agree with Nick Wright on. Um, it was a bad picture of me. And things I don't. At no point was Kobe the best player in the world.
But this video isn't about arguing with Nick Wright. If anything, I did my best to understand Nick Wright. The problem is Nick Wright's logic is like a complicated maze. I tried my absolute best to make my way through it, but instead, I ended up hopelessly lost. In this video, I'll take you down the same paths I followed and show you the same dead ends I kept running into. If I misunderstood something or took a wrong turn somewhere, let me know in the comments.
And the idea when you talk about Kobe and say we can't disregard the numbers or just talk about how it felt like playing with him or playing against him, it also disregards the fact that we gloss over the things that for every other great player, for every other guy that's in the discussion, are mandatory. Multiple MVPs, show them to me. How about being the best player on a championship team at least three times? Show it to me.
So, Nick confidently argues that to be in the discussion, presumably the greatest players ever discussion, or to be more honest, the can you be compared to LeBron discussion, every all-time great has to meet certain mandatory criteria. Why are these criteria mandatory and why these specific ones?
Being the best player on a championship team at least three times, show it to me.
Why isn't being a five-time champion, for example, one of them? The only logical explanation I could come up with is that these are simply the criteria Kobe supposedly doesn't meet, which automatically disqualifies him from being compared to LeBron.
But I don't even want to debate Kobe versus LeBron because I don't think it's interesting.
Either way, these are Nick's criteria. I'm not arguing with them. I'm trying to understand them. And according to Nick, the first requirement is having multiple MVPs.
Multiple MVPs? Show them to me.
Since Nick starts with that criterion, it must be an incredibly important award in his mind, one that defines greatness. But at the same time, when the discussion shifts to who was actually the best player in the league, Nick completely ignores the MVP award. He literally doesn't care about it.
Just like in 2007, LeBron didn't deserve to win MVP of the league, even if in the playoffs he showed you he was the most valuable player and best player in the league. But there should be I say it's unofficial, but an official designation at the end of every year, who's the best basketball player? Who is the best basketball player alive?
He didn't consider Jokic the best player in any of the seasons Jokic won MVP.
If Nikola Jokic wins the MVP, he's the worst player to win the MVP since Dave Cowens.
Yet in 2026, when SGA won his second straight MVP, Nick then said Jokic was the best player in basketball.
Shai's numbers were what they were. His team's record was what it was. Wemby missed time at the end of the year, 32 a game on 55% efficiency. I thought Shai deserved to win the league MVP. But he's not the best player in the world. Going into the playoffs, Colin, most people, myself, I thought Joker was the best player in the world.
Same.
Nick believed LeBron became the best player in the NBA long before he won his first MVP.
Can we agree that since LeBron took the Cavs to the finals in '07, he's been the best player in basketball?
Not even close.
That's a 9-year run.
In fact, he says LeBron was the league's best player for 12 straight years.
He was the best player until that 48 special by LeBron in 2007. LeBron was the best player in the world from that moment until 2018.
During that stretch, plenty of different players won MVP awards, but according to Nick, none of them ever became better than LeBron because of it.
Multiple MVPs, show them to me. But that that is a different award than who is the most outstanding player this year. The best player in basketball is LeBron. He's been the best player, aside from his injury year, for a decade.
for LeBron not with Kobe, not when Kobe was around. He wasn't the best when Kobe was around.
But I don't even want to debate Kobe versus LeBron because I don't think it's interesting.
Another one of Nick's criteria is being the best player on at least three championship teams.
Being the best player on a championship team at least three times, show it to me.
Why exactly three? I'm guessing the answer is the same as with multiple MVPs. Fine. If Nick believes Shaq was the Lakers best player during the three-peat, then that criterion works. But what about Wilt, who's sixth on Nick's all-time list? Not only was Wilt never the best player on three championship teams, he wasn't even on three championship teams. He only won two titles, and he was probably the best player on just one of them. Some people will point out that he won two Finals MVPs, but according to Nick Wright, Finals MVP doesn't necessarily tell you who the best player on the team was. In fact, he doesn't even treat it as a decisive award.
Lakers win the title, Magic gets his second Finals MVP. Should be his first Finals MVP cuz Kareem should have won in '80.
For example, he believes Kareem should have won the 1980 Finals MVP because in his view, Kareem was still the Lakers best player, and Magic didn't become their best player until 1982.
And this marks Kareem moving into a slightly different phase of his career. And in the Finals, for the first time in his career, he's outplayed by somebody, but it's his teammate Magic. Lakers win the title. Magic gets his second Finals MVP. Should be his first Finals MVP.
Which leaves me wondering, when exactly was Kareem, who's second only to LeBron on Nick's all-time list?
LeBron, Kareem, the best player on three championship teams. Because based on Nick's own logic, I can only come up with two.
Who is the best basketball player alive? And you can call it a title belt in the history of the game. Well, it's from Bill Russell to now, only 13 people have ever carried that belt. To Kareem for quite some time. Moses Malone had it in the very early '80s. Then Magic and Bird went back and forth.
Here's another thing I couldn't wrap my head around. Nick says Shaq had the greatest peak ever.
My number one draft pick all time, every player alive for get them at the peak of their powers, apex version of themselves for one game, Shaq might be the number one pick.
Under these parameters, he would be considered the greatest player ever. If the question is, you can have any player in NBA history for one game at his apex peak of his powers, who are you choosing? My answer is Shaquille O'Neal. Because as great as Jordan was, as great as Kareem was, as great as LeBron was, even at their apex peak, they might have an off night. It's unlikely, but they might have an off night. As I will prove to you, during Shaquille O'Neal's true apex peak, he never had an off night when he cared.
Better than LeBron, better than Jordan, better than anyone. Yet, according to Nick, for Kobe to even belong in the conversation with LeBron, he would have had to be better than the peak version of the player Nick says was better than peak LeBron.
In the playoff run, he averages 29 points, seven rebounds, six assists. He's 22 years old. Round two against Sacramento, game three. 36, seven, and four. And in game four, to finish off the sweep, plays all 48 minutes and has 48 and 16. 48 and 16. 22 years old to finish off the sweep of the Kings. Uh averages for the series, 35 points, nine rebounds, four assists. Opens the next round. So, he closed out Sacramento with 48. Opens the next round with 45 and 10. So, that's 93 points in consecutive playoff games for the '01 Lakers. Uh to eliminate the Spurs that round, he has 36, nine, and eight. In the finals, he scores 30 twice. Averages for the finals, 25, eight, and six. The Lakers are 15 and one that playoffs. Some people think it's the greatest team ever. He was dominant. Utterly dominant. He's 22 years old. But, I don't even want to debate Kobe versus LeBron because I don't think it's interesting.
According to Nick, Duncan was the best player in basketball from 2003 through 2007 because over those five years, he won three championships and two MVPs.
From 2003 until 2007, Tim Duncan was the best player in the world. You know how I know Tim Duncan was the best player in the world at that time? Because he won three championships in five years, he won two MVPs, he was the best player.
From '08 to '10, the guy I have as the best player alive, LeBron, won zero championships, Kobe won two of them. I understand that that part of it. And [laughter] my issue is I think LeBron became the best player in the NBA in 2007 at 22 years old when he carried that team to the NBA finals with the 48 special against Detroit. Now, and some would say Nick, you're biased towards LeBron. I don't think I am, but so be it. I I I always I'll defend LeBron here.
[laughter]
In reality, during that stretch, Duncan only won one MVP because his first MVP came in 2002, a year when Nick says Shaq was actually the best player. But as we've already established, the MVP award is sometimes decisive in Nick's logic, and sometimes it means absolutely nothing. Kobe, by the way, won an MVP in back-to-back championships from 2008 through 2010. Yet somehow, that still wasn't enough for Nick to consider him the best player in the league in even a single one of those years.
Cuz Kobe's the eighth greatest player ever, and he was never the best player in the world.
Steph Curry won three championships and two MVPs in a four-year span. Unfortunately for Steph, that wasn't enough, either, because apparently LeBron surpassed all of those accomplishments simply by having one incredible game against the Pistons in 2007.
That 48 special by LeBron in 2007, LeBron was the best player in the world from that moment until 2018.
In the very next game of that same series, he made just three of his 11 shots, but that was still enough to carry his 50-win team to the finals.
When he carried that team to the NBA finals
while Daniel Gibson came off the bench with 31 points on 99% true shooting. There's another detail I couldn't make sense of. Duncan was supposedly the best player through 2007 because he won the championship that year.
Because he won three championships in five years.
But LeBron had already taken the best player in the world title away from Duncan before Duncan even won that championship. Then Duncan swept the NBA's best player, LeBron, and somehow that sweep officially anointed LeBron as the best player for the next decade. That's the logic here, right? He also says one of the biggest reasons he ranks Duncan ahead of Kobe is that Duncan had fewer tough playoff moments.
Duncan Kobe One of the deciding factors is Duncan doesn't have as many tough playoff moments as Kobe.
So, what exactly counts as a tough playoff moment?
Kobe had that little gulf in the middle of his career, post-Shaq, pre-Pau.
For Nick, one example is 2005.
What about 2005? I don't know.
When Kobe got injured, missed part of the season, and missed the playoffs, just like LeBron in 2019, who got injured, missed part of the season, and also missed the playoffs. That didn't stop Nick from still viewing him as the goat.
What about 2006? It's like, well, I don't know. Best player in the world, lose in round one.
Another tough moment is Kobe coming one rebound away from upsetting the second seeded Suns, a team with two All-Stars and the most improved player. Meanwhile, what happened to Duncan? In 2009, his Spurs lost 4-1 in the first round to a weaker Mavericks team. And in game three, Duncan scored just four points. Or in 2011, when the 61-win Spurs got bounced in the first round by the 46-win Grizzlies. I don't remember Kobe ever losing under those kinds of circumstances. In 1961, Wilt led the NBA in scoring and got swept in the first round by a team that finished 38-41. In In he led the league in both scoring and rebounding, but missed the playoffs altogether because his team had a losing record. Nick says Kareem was the best player of the '70s, yet in 1973, right in the middle of his prime, his 60-win team entered the series as a heavy favorite, only to lose in the first round to a 47-win underdog. Then, he missed the playoffs twice.
Best player in the world, missed the playoffs? Probably not.
Then, he lost in the wild-card round, the equivalent of today's play-in.
Best player in the world, lose in round one?
And in 1981, after joining forces with Magic, who is either fourth or fifth on Nick's all-time list, the defending champions, led by those two all-time greats, lost in the first round to a 40-win team. When Kobe loses as the seventh seed to the second seed, Nick calls that a tough playoff moments. When defending champions Kareem and Magic lose in the first round to a team with a losing record, suddenly, it's just a fluky best-of-three thing.
The two times he didn't make the finals, one of them was again because of a fluky best-of-three round one thing. So, I think this is a little unfair to Kobe.
[laughter]
And in those three championship runs, those three NBA finals, they didn't need a closer because the games were not close and the series were not close because Shaquille O'Neal, across those three NBA finals, averaged 36, 15, four, and three on 60%. So, Kobe misses game three with an injury that he suffered in game two.
Nick also forgot to mention that the one game Kobe missed was the one the Lakers lost.
He's back in game four. That game goes to overtime. The series is only 2-1. Shaq fouls out. Kobe scores eight points in OT. Finishes with 28 for the game, and they go up 3-1, obviously going to win the championship. Uh and then by the way, in game six, the title-clinching game, 26 points, 10 rebounds, four assists. Those three NBA finals, they didn't need a closer. Shaq fouls out. Kobe scores eight points in OT.
And while Nick says the games weren't close and the series wasn't close, Indiana still won two of its home games. The only home game they didn't win went to overtime and was decided by Kobe Bryant's clutch brilliance. I can't even understand Nick's logic when it comes to this photo.
1 minute left, Brazil, your team is out. We have some footage.
Are you just going to show a picture of me? You just want to show this picture of me. Hold on.
backing the UK, Harry Kane, Jude Bellingham? Back the Brits.
Listen, man. It the people think that's not a flattering picture of me. I think I look resplendent.
He says it's a bad picture. He explains why it's a bad picture.
And then I can also have watching, you know, my pick go down in flames. Hair tied back, sunglasses that don't work, ridiculous bucket hat that I bought from a stand here in Harlem hours before the game. Um it was a bad pick by me. And I was in utter pain at that game.
So, who was the sneaky paparazzo that happened to catch Nick at such an unfortunate angle? Oh, wait. It's Nick. Posted the picture himself on his own Twitter page.
I've said some very clear and obvious truths. They didn't need a closer because the games were not close and the series were not close.
Kobe had a key moment in 2000 to win the championship, the game Shaq bailed out of because the games were not close.
The Pacers had tied it with seven unanswered points.
They didn't need a closer.
But six straight for the Lakers after the timeout and it's 109-103.
Kobe Bryant has such great confidence. He's going to square up little penetration and he's going to hit the jumper to put him up six and he's going to go off. I got it under control and Phil Jackson his coach wait wait for him. He always said to him already to lift he said run the offense. Kobe said okay, I'll do it coach. He knows the confidence that Kobe had.
Kobe had Shaquille O'Neal.
And with that miss O'Neal despite scoring 40 points is two for nine at the line.
Phil Jackson is taking O'Neal out of the game. So if they can come down and use clock then he can bring them back in the game and the hack-a-Shaq then is over. This is a good substitution by Phil. And you know who's going to have the ball. They're going to get it to Kobe and try to get him to attack off the dribble and get to that free throw line. This is the tie ball game and Shaq is out of the game and he can do his thing. Will the Lakers go through Shaq? He struggled tonight. You know that if he catches the ball they're going to foul him. With that said normally KOBE IS THE GUY that if they put the hand at the ball in his hand let's see what happens. But you know that if Shaq catches it they're going to foul him.
STRAIGHT UP D FOR INDIANA. Kobe off balance.
[cheering]
And the whistle blows. He had the ball knocked away but the foul is on Indiana. Kobe will shoot two free throws. 13 seconds to go. Four points.
[cheering]
Five. He drives, throws it up. Dale Davis recovers and dunks it with 5.4 seconds.
And the series were not close.
The Indiana Pacers have played tremendous basketball.
They could have won game two here. Came within a single shot of winning game four, and perhaps winning all three games in Indiana. And they led after three quarters here. Mid court. Into Bryant. He's expecting them to foul him. They take a while to do it.
And if he makes one free throw, the game is over basically because what happens, Bobby, is if you shoot a free, you catch it while the ball is in the air, the clock will go off. They're one free throw away right now from being the champions.
If he misses them both, the Pacers have a timeout left. That's not going to happen.
Remember yesterday we spoke to Kobe Bryant, and I asked him, I said, "Kobe, you're a dreamer." And he said, "Yes, and I'm going to dream that I'm going to be holding that trophy tomorrow night." Well, it looks like he's going to get his wish.
[cheering]
In 2 and 1/2 seconds, it appears he will.
[cheering]
The Pacers, struggling to the last, use their last timeout. Jackson looking to throw it in against Shaq. Reggie turns and pumps it up. Off the rim, and the Lakers [cheering] are the 2000 NBA champions.
[cheering]
But yes, it's been Kobe. And yes, it's been Shaq. No question about that.
If you enjoy my videos, you can support the channel by joining it. You also get access to these custom emojis, which will help you express your thoughts about this video in the comments. Till next time.