I think Pelius implied that great athletes are born, which to an extent is true. As my point was if Kobe was a 5'9 male from Thunderbay, Canada he could have had the same work ethic but would have likely not ended up in the NBA, let alone been an all time great.
Conversely Kobe would have likely had multiple opportunities to play basketball at the elite/professional level putting forth minimal effort based on his physical gifts alone (Korelone Young was considered a diamond in the rough based on his physical gifts and he was drafted in the 2nd round 2 years after Kobe. But he wasnt mentally muture enough to be a professional).
It can be either or but RARELY is either one alone enough to be "great".
I would say that either or is NEVER enough to be truly great, but greatness is defined differently in different fields, so I guess it's possible for that not to be true in some cases. I don't think it could ever be the case in basketball.
I could be missing your point (and the point of the convo and if so I apologize for that), but it sounds like you're saying he had a predisposition to be good at basketball because he was tall and agile. Those aren't qualities that are rare among nba players, so it wasn't like those things preordained him for greatness.
There's a book by Malcolm Gladwell called The Outliers. I'm sure you've heard of it and probably read it or some stuff related to it. Anyway, he makes the argument that the people who achieve greatness are people who have had 10,000 hours to perfect their craft. That's a huge simplification of the book, but he makes what I considered to be a good case- obviously, ymmmv. Kobe excelling so early is like the embodiment of what he argued in the book in some aspects.