MVP + Finals MVP..

[HarlemHeat37]

Does every truly great player have to have this on their resume?..I'm not talking about both awards throughout a career, I'm talking about winning both awards in the same season..

Duncan in 2003, Shaq in 2000, Jordan multiple times, Hakeem in 1994, Magic in 1987, Bird multiple times, Kareem multiple times, Wilt in 1967, Russell multiple times..

Those are all considered to be top 10 players by facts, accolades and logic..

To me, having this represents pure dominance throughout the entire year of basketball..dominating the league during the regular season, standing out as the best player of that season, and following it up with dominance during the playoffs, where it matters the most..

Can you truly be on this level without having this accomplishment on your resume?..

[Silver&Black]

Yes...Kobe hasn't done it. And I would call him a "great" player. It helps...but it isn't a must.

[HarlemHeat37]

By great player, I mean on the level of those guys that I named..I should have elaborated..I consider guys like Malone(s), Robinson and others to be "great" as well, I wouldn't put them on that level though..

[elemento]

yes it's a must

[TheMACHINE]

Kobe was so close to getting MVP, a Finals MVP and a Gold Medal in one season.

[TheNextGen]

By great player, I mean on the level of those guys that I named..I should have elaborated..I consider guys like Malone(s), Robinson and others to be "great" as well, I wouldn't put them on that level though..

So Hakeem is in the same level as Jordan and Bird.....mmmmkay :rolleyes

[HarlemHeat37]

By "that level", I meant within the elite top 9, I'm not adding sub-levels here, Laker fan..discuss the topic..

[TheNextGen]

By "that level", I meant within the elite top 9, I'm not adding sub-levels here, Laker fan..discuss the topic..

you said those guys you named...and i see you named Hakeem.

[21_Blessings]

Regular season MVP is a laughable media acknowledgement that no one takes seriously anymore after Nash/Dirk deprecated all over it.

[Cane]

Kinda interesting that each position in the NBA has won the MVP + Finals MVP in the same season. Thats some truly elite talent and one hell of a rare career landmark for your legacy.

If the media starts siding towards Durant, LeBron may never have such bragging rights either.

[HarlemHeat37]

Regular season MVP is a laughable media acknowledgement that no one takes seriously anymore after Nash/Dirk deprecated all over it.

All the guys on this list won MVP before this happened;)..

[TheMACHINE]

It's unfortunate that Lebron will never win another MVP or even one Finals MVP. oh well.

[HarlemHeat37]

Kinda interesting that each position in the NBA has won the MVP + Finals MVP. Thats some truly elite talent and one hell of a rare career landmark for your legacy.

If the media starts siding towards Durant, LeBron may never have such bragging rights either.

It's certainly possible..even a dominant player like Lebron may never have the honor of achieving this, which speaks on how tough it is..

[024]

the last regular season mvp to take home the championship was duncan. kind of amazing no one else could do it since then.

[picc84]

It's unfortunate that Lebron will never win another MVP or even one Finals MVP. oh well.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6854/ql6uh.gif

[21_Blessings]

All the guys on this list won MVP before this happened;)..

All the guys on your list will be remembered as a lesser player than Kobe Bryant when it's all said in done.

So your thread is moot.

Also Iverson winning a MVP :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

All the guys on your list will be remembered as a lesser player than Kobe Bryant when it's all said in done.

So your thread is moot.

Also Iverson winning a MVP :lol

So you don't think this accomplishment is extremely impressive?..

[JamStone]

Moses Malone, 1983
Willis Reed, 1970

Moses is a top 10 player or very close to it also, but while Reed is a great HOFer in his own right, I wouldn't put him in the class of the above names.

And technically, Russell and Chamberlain never did it, as the Finals MVP wasn't awarded until the 1969 Finals. It's a safe assumption that Russell would have won multiple Finals MVPs in his 5 league MVPs seasons. Wilt would have probably won the 1967 Finals MVP but it's not a certainty. Hal Greer could have been awarded that Finals MVP.

It's a provocative question though. Seems like a pretty rare feat and done almost only the greats of the greats. I will say this though, that only represents one season. Being able to win league MVP and Finals MVP in the same season is a huge accomplishment but it still only represents that one season. Doing it multiple times is a better gauge of true elite greatness. Doing it once but being only very good the rest of one's career can happen as well. Willis Reed was amazing, and maybe if he stayed healthy and played longer he might be in the discussion as a top 10 player, but the fact that he did it and isn't what I feel in the same company as the other names, I think it's more just a really amazing feat but not necessarily a requisite for that top of the line greatness, particularly if the player only did it once.

[TheMACHINE]

i wonder if Duncan would like to trade in his 2003 regular season MVP award for back 2 back (2002, 2003) titles....hmmmm

[21_Blessings]

So you don't think this accomplishment is extremely impressive?..

Hakeem's was the most impressive since he also won a DPOY.

But your premise is retarded as the MVP award has been a joke the last decade.

Nice edit by the way :lol

[Ace]

All the guys on your list will be remembered as a lesser player than Kobe Bryant when it's all said in done.

So your thread is moot.

Also Iverson winning a MVP :lol

Kobe will be remember as a great sidekick to Shaq and Pau :tu

[DazedAndConfused]

Regular season MVP means jack shit.

Everyone knows Kobe was the best player in the league in '05/'06, but because he played on a god awful team he wasn't considered.

[Galileo]

Hakeem was better than Jordan in his prime.

[mingus]

Duncan 2 MVPS, 3 Finals MVPS

Kobe will need 1 more FInal's MVP to be on Duncan and Shaq's level. until then, he's just not on their level. MVP has relevence when you're arguing Shaq or Tim, who have had similar careers in terms of accomplishments. when it comes to the greats no one cares about how manyt hey own in the passengers seat.

this next year sort of reminds me of '07 with Miami forming their trio. Everybody thought the Spurs would continue there dominance, then LA got Gasol, and that changed. however, what seperates this year from that is that Kobe is in his prime still, basically. Duncan was starting to fade when LA got Gasol. So Kobe has A LOT more to lose if Miami takes the NBA over these next five years (which is very possible).

[JamStone]

this next year sort of reminds me of '07 with Miami forming their trio. Everybody thought the Spurs would continue there dominance, then LA got Gasol, and that changed. however, what seperates this year from that is that Kobe is in his prime still, basically. Duncan was starting to fade when LA got Gasol. So Kobe has A LOT more to lose if Miami takes the NBA over these next five years (which is very possible).

People love to twist the "Kobe is old and declining" vs. "Kobe is still in his prime" angle to suit an argument.


At the beginning of the 2007-08 season, Tim Duncan:

31 years and 6 months old
10 NBA seasons
746 regular season games
138 playoff games

At the beginning of the 2010-11 season, Kobe Bryant:

32 years and 2 months old
14 NBA seasons
1021 regular season games
198 playoff games


So why exactly does Kobe have more to lose based on him still being "in his prime" but Duncan apparently "starting to fade" in 2007?

[picc84]

Not to mention that Kobe's prime ended years ago.

[baseline bum]

The MVP started being a ridiculous award once the media got sick of giving it to Jordan even though he was always the best player between about '88 and '98. Then Duncan got robbed in 1999, Shaq in 2001, and Kobe in 2006 (4th place? What the fuck?).

[poop]

Kobe has had incredible supporting casts when his teams have won titles.

the only True legends that have accomplished this feat are guys like Jordan and Duncan who have led otherwise 'good' teams to titles, while leading the team in most statistical categories, hell Duncan could have been DPOY in 2003 as well...

[Nathan89]

Kobe has had incredible supporting casts when his teams have won titles.

the only True legends that have accomplished this feat are guys like Jordan and Duncan who have led otherwise 'good' teams to titles, while leading the team in most statistical categories, hell Duncan could have been DPOY in 2003 as well...

This is true and that is why duncan is way better than kobe.

[TheGreatest23]

This is true and that is why duncan is way better than kobe.


:lmao

[21_Blessings]

This is true and that is why duncan is way better than kobe.

Duncan sure lead the 2004 Olympic team to glory. :rollin

That is why Kobe is way better than Duncan.

[HarlemHeat37]

Back on topic, please..

Kobe isn't involved in this discussion, he has never achieved this feat..

[TD 21]

The MVP started being a ridiculous award once the media got sick of giving it to Jordan even though he was always the best player between about '88 and '98. Then Duncan got robbed in 1999, Shaq in 2001, and Kobe in 2006 (4th place? What the fuck?).

James is about to start getting the Jordan treatment and he would have even had he remained a Cav. Voters are going to realize "wait a second, he's only 26 (by next year's voting), already has 2 and will likely compete for these for the better part of the next decade. That means he could blow away Abdul-Jabbar and Jordan" and all of a sudden you're going to start to see Howard get his token one, Durant should get at least one, Wade will probably get one, Paul or Anthony if they're on good enough teams have a shot to get one, and don't be surprised if Bryant is handed one more.

The amazing thing about the MVP award is Duncan, O'Neal and Bryant, the three best players of their generation, have just one more combined than Nash and Nowitzki. Yes, I know, it's not a career achievement award and is based on play for a single season, but come on. That stat is nothing short of ridiculous.

[21_Blessings]

Nash winning back to back MVPs is one of the biggest travesties in all of sports.

[ezau]

Regular season MVP is a laughable media acknowledgement that no one takes seriously anymore after Nash/Dirk deprecated all over it.

So that means Kobe has 0 MVP awards. Okay

[TheMACHINE]

So that means Kobe has 0 MVP awards. Okay

okay

[Ace]

Back on topic, please..

Kobe isn't involved in this discussion, he has never achieved this feat..
And it kills Lakers fans that he hasn't. They know he will never be Jordan no matter the rings, he just simply hasn't accomplished nearly what Jordan has.

[Koolaid_Man]

Back on topic, please..

Kobe isn't involved in this discussion, he has never achieved this feat..


He doesn't need to.

What I do know is that Kobe is sitting on 25,790 career points for # 12 on the NBA all time list. After this season he will leap frog basically 6 spots to sit comfortably in the 6th spot behind Shaq ( no pun intended). He will pass up players 6-11:

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 38, 387 pts
2. Karl Malone - 36, 928 pts
3. Michael Jordan -, 292 pts
4. Wilt Chamberlain - 31, 419 pts
5. Shaq Oneal - 28, 255 pts
6. Moses Malone - 27, 409 pts (This will Kobe’s spot after this season)
7. Elvin Hayes - 27,313 pts
8. Hakeem Olajuwon -26, 946 pts
9. Oscar Robertson - 26,710 pts
10. Dominique Wilkens - 26,668 pts
11. John Havlicek - 26, 395 pts
12. The Black Mamba - 25,790 pts

So let me take you on math journey since. Over his career Kobe averages 1842 pts/yr. The last 5 seasons though ( which is more relevant) he’s avg 2351 pts/yr including with injuries. Last year was an off season injury plagued season for Kobe in which he scored only 1970 pts, still better than his career avg but below the last 5 seasons mark. So I estimate that next year a healthy Kobe will avg about 2000-2200 pts in order to sacrifice his game for the team. Let’s take the low end and say 2000 pts that comfortable put him at 27,790 pts and his 6th place all-time. In 2012 he will pass Shaq up ( while Shaq is still playing for 5th all time). But let’s say factoring age , Bynum’s emergence , more ball movement , and desire to save himself for the play-offs his numbers dip in each succeeding year. let’s say it tapers off to about 1800 a season worst case scenario ( and at age 32) if Kobe plays just 7 more seasons he will be in sole possession of 1st place on the all time scoring list with with 38,390 pts . Or he can play 8 more seasons and and 1600/yr and he still beats the all-time mark by 200 pts with 38,590 pts

At any rate the path way to NBA immortality is paved for Kobe. He will top Kareem and MJ for 8 titles 3 more in his cards and will top Kareem in points solidifying his claim as the NBA’s greatest. These are hallowed records like baseball’s home run and for Kobe to be on the list as an active player and still dominating is the true measuring stick. See MVP awards are fine but they’re not symbolic of the effort. They’re more cosmetics than anything. Give me the bitch that doesn’t need make-up. Titles, scoring records, peer acknowledgment means more than anything.

Look at the list above again and look at the company Kobe is keeping and surpassing at the same time. Duncan, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowtski are no where near this list. I will let you haters marinate on that for minute. :toast

[HarlemHeat37]

TBH, I didn't read any of that..

Reason #1- It's a post from you, and I usually try to avoid posts from you..
Reason #2- It has nothing to do with this thread..

This isn't a discussion about Kobe and his random achievements, it's a discussion about the rarity and dominance involved when it comes to achieving this feat..there's a Kobe thread sticky-ed at the top of the forum for Kobe discussion..

[JamStone]

Off the top before looking into stats and achievements, where would you have ranked Willis Reed?

After realizing he has done this, would that change where you ranked him?

Do you think he belongs in the discussion of the elite of the elite HOFers?

[TD 21]

Regular season points are relatively irrelevant. Obviously, they matter to a point. But no knowledgeable basketball fan would weigh them heavily in the all-time greats argument. If they did, Hayes, Wilkins and Havlicek would figure much more prominently into the discussion than they do and Russell and to a lesser extent, Johnson and Duncan, wouldn't figure as prominently into the discussion as they do.

Besides, Bryant's total regular season points, while a testament to his superb scoring ability, durability and longevity, are also a testament to him being a selfish, stats obsessed gunner, who has fired away more relentlessly than almost any player in the history of the game. If Duncan did that, he'd have a lot more points too.

[Koolaid_Man]

TBH, I didn't read any of that..

Reason #1- It's a post from you, and I usually try to avoid posts from you..
Reason #2- It has nothing to do with this thread..

This isn't a discussion about Kobe and his random achievements, it's a discussion about the rarity and dominance involved when it comes to achieving this feat..there's a Kobe thread sticky-ed at the top of the forum for Kobe discussion..


you know quite well what it's about for someone that was honest and didn't read it...:lmao I know dude I'm a muthafucker always raining on your little parade and busting your ass with truth...man what you gonna do about this nigga Koolaid dropping dimes and exposing your weak ass arguements...:rollin nothing I guess.

[HarlemHeat37]

Off the top before looking into stats and achievements, where would you have ranked Willis Reed?

After realizing he has done this, would that change where you ranked him?

Do you think he belongs in the discussion of the elite of the elite HOFers?

- I've never seen Willis Reed play, so I can't comment without looking into stats and achievements..

- Yes, it would IMO..it's an incredible feat IMO..

- No..I said that this could be a requirement being on this level, I never said just doing this alone would put you on the level..while Reed did it, which elevates him IMO, he obviously doesn't have the rest of the accolades/stats/impact to fit in..

[JMarkJohns]

Off the top before looking into stats and achievements, where would you have ranked Willis Reed?

After realizing he has done this, would that change where you ranked him?

Do you think he belongs in the discussion of the elite of the elite HOFers?

I can't answer this question for here, but I can from a past experience. On another site I was once asked for my top-10 centers of all-time. Being that I've only been watching basketball for 20 years, I did a lot of statistical research before providing my rankings.

Entering, I hadn't really considered Willis Reed as one I'd truly consider. I'd always thought his inclusion in the Top-50 of All-Time list compiled for the NBA's 50th anniversary a bit of a puzzler. I'd heard of his name and knew he was a very good player, but I figured it to be east coast bias. Upon examining the MVP list, I saw that he'd won one. I was surprised, so I poked around a bit more and was shocked to see he'd won it the same year of his famous Finals MVP. Not only that, but that same season he won All-Star game MVP.

Having never seen him, it's very difficult to not favor other players such as Wilt/Russell based on legend or the players of today that I've seen, but to win those definitely changed my opinion of him as a player, one from a very good, likely overrated from playing in NY (think Namath) to one of actual greatness, if only briefly, but deserving of these types of mentions.

Fact he did it against a renaissance season for Wilt makes it all the more impressive.

How many have won all available MVPs in the same season?

[Koolaid_Man]

Regular season points are relatively irrelevant. Obviously, they matter to a point. But no knowledgeable basketball fan would weigh them heavily in the all-time greats argument. If they did, Hayes, Wilkins and Havlicek would figure much more prominently into the discussion than they do and Russell and to a lesser extent, Johnson and Duncan, wouldn't figure as prominently into the discussion as they do.

Besides, Bryant's total regular season points, while a testament to his superb scoring ability, durability and longevity, are also a testament to him being a selfish, stats obsessed gunner, who has fired away more relentlessly than almost any player in the history of the game. If Duncan did that, he'd have a lot more points too.

You're a laughing riot trying to imply you and fellow Spur fans are knowledgeable. Duncan is no where close to Kobe's skill level and athleticism. He could never score with Kobe...Kobe would and has shitted on Duncan's accomplishments. Duncan compared to Kobe will be relegated to a footnote in history. No outside of San Antonio even considers Duncan in Kobe's league, titles or not.

Thank goodness Spike Lee did his documentary while Kobe was putting the Spurs away. That is an immortal piece of work. Classic and Timeless, and I'm grateful for it and I want to shed a tear like Fisher after the Finals game 3. Because it symbolizes the death of the Spurs and it went out to basketball fans around the world. :toast

Xga1YIu1Yog

[HarlemHeat37]

- This thread isn't about Kobe, I didn't mention him at all in my OP, so I have no idea why you brought him up..

- Defending a title is definitely a nice thing to have on the resume, but titles are won by teams, not individuals..winning regular season MVP AND Finals MVP means you dominated the entire year of basketball, and that you were unquestionably the best player in the league for the entire year..it combines both individual accolades AND winning, not just winning, which is more team-oriented..

[HarlemHeat37]

Defending your title shows dominance from a TEAM..

Winning the 2 biggest individual awards in the same season, combining individual game + winning, is the most dominance you can have IMO..

Show me a link that MVPs are decided by like/dislike..

[JMarkJohns]

- This thread isn't about Kobe, I didn't mention him at all in my OP, so I have no idea why you brought him up..

Combination of unfamiliarity and insecurity. First, note that very few posting Laker fans are mentioning/celebrating the inclusions of Laker greats Magic and Kareem on your initial list. Seems like many of the Laker fans posting more than likely weren't old enough to really watch/experience their greatness. So as not to go unread, their insecurity finds them drudging up the one thing they do know/celebrate. The thread just can't be without it evolving into a Kobe glorification thread.

This is no slight to Kobe on my part. His greatness is understood, and I'd say it is such to the extent that conversations not about Kobe, that his greatness needn't be stated.

All that said, the intent of the thread was to compare this accomplishment against the history of NBA accomplishments/careers. I do think the Kobe discussions are fair, they do seem a bit overstated, however. Maybe it's just the posters making the arguments?

[JMarkJohns]

To win a finals MVP, you have to win the title, which is a team effort.

"We haven't met, have we?"

Signed,
Jerry West's 1969 Finals MVP

[Koolaid_Man]

Since you are trying to compare the greatness of these guys to Kobe. And since you obviously called out Laker fans to make a case for Kobe being on the level of these guys, I'll give you a much greater feat. Winning the NBA MVP is something plenty of players have done. Winning the finals MVP and season MVP in one season puts you in a rare category. As you have pointed out, only 9 players have done so, and those 9 players are most likely in everyone's top 10 all time greats. Is there a greater category that could elevate a player above any of the players that you just mentioned... let's see.

Due to the fact that the regular season MVP award is mostly a popularity contest, and I'm sure most people would agree, I personally place the finals MVP award above it because you are playing for all the marbles. I'd bet every player in history that owns a regular season MVP award and don't own a finals MVP award would trade their regular season MVP for a finals MVP. Either way, no matter how you look at it, it's a great feat, and Kobe is yet to accomplish this. Is this a knock on him, no, or maybe some may think it is, but as I said earlier, there is a feat that is much greater than winning finals and regular season MVP's in one season. HarlemHo, I know by know you are wondering what it is. I purposely drug this out since you went out of your way to call out Lakers fans on this issue. Have you figured it out? Probably not, but I'm sure you thought you had finally figured out a way to reduce Kobe and shut Lakers fans up in the process. But in reality, you just provided another opportunity to prove how great Kobe has become.:lol How about that, even in what you think will be your most finest hour, I've found a way to turn it into an advantage.

Winning those individual awards are nice, but defending your crown is the greatest achievement in all of sports. It proves that what you did the season before wasn't luck, and also proves that you can handle the pressure of having the bulls eye on your back. Kobe has defended his crown three times. Shaq did it twice, MJ did it four times, Hakeem did it once, Magic did it once, Zeke did it once, Bird and Duncan never did it. Kareem did it once, Wilt never did it, Russell did it nine times. Mikan did it three times.

So, if you really want to measure greatness, I think we all can agree that there is nothing more greater than winning a title, and I think there is nothing more greater than defending that title... something Duncan, Bird, and Wilt have never done. But if you really want to separate yourself from the best, you defend that title multiple times. And as of right now, only Kobe, Shaq, MJ, Russell and Mikan have done it. Check mate.:toast


I think it's safe to call those titles luck. Talk about inconsistency...

But I also think this is worth sharing Luva you should start a thread that asks how many times have Kobe personally served up Duncan and show the video. Man Spurs fans won't appreciate this but this video is just sick. I felt kinda sorry for Timmy the only time I've seen facials this personal has been jizzing on her face when done. Man I stopped counting Kobe was doing this Nigga so fucking bad...shit...

WQxgHgRh95Y

[JamStone]

- I've never seen Willis Reed play, so I can't comment without looking into stats and achievements..

- Yes, it would IMO..it's an incredible feat IMO..

- No..I said that this could be a requirement being on this level, I never said just doing this alone would put you on the level..while Reed did it, which elevates him IMO, he obviously doesn't have the rest of the accolades/stats/impact to fit in..

Would be an odd "requirement" to be on that level when a player not on that level can and has achieved it. And, I will stress the fact that it's an accomplishment that represents only one season. A player can just have an unbelievable season where he puts it all together, things just bounce the right way for him, some lucky breaks or circumstances (as I explain with Willis Reed below), but the rest of that player's career is less than the greatness of that one season. Doing it multiple times has a stronger case, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

I would liken it to the triple crown in MLB baseball. A player can have a season for the ages, win the triple crown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that player is one of the best of the bests. A couple triple crown winners aren't even in the baseball Hall of Fame. And the two players considered the best of all time, Babe Ruth and Willy Mays, didn't accomplish the feat.

It's an unbelievable thing to win League MVP and Finals MVP in the same season. But it does take help from your team to actually get to the Finals to have a chance at it. It relies on teammates and some luck. Certainly shouldn't be a requirement to be considered the "best of the best," although so far it seems the best of the best have done it.




I can't answer this question for here, but I can from a past experience. On another site I was once asked for my top-10 centers of all-time. Being that I've only been watching basketball for 20 years, I did a lot of statistical research before providing my rankings.

Entering, I hadn't really considered Willis Reed as one I'd truly consider. I'd always thought his inclusion in the Top-50 of All-Time list compiled for the NBA's 50th anniversary a bit of a puzzler. I'd heard of his name and knew he was a very good player, but I figured it to be east coast bias. Upon examining the MVP list, I saw that he'd won one. I was surprised, so I poked around a bit more and was shocked to see he'd won it the same year of his famous Finals MVP. Not only that, but that same season he won All-Star game MVP.

Having never seen him, it's very difficult to not favor other players such as Wilt/Russell based on legend or the players of today that I've seen, but to win those definitely changed my opinion of him as a player, one from a very good, likely overrated from playing in NY (think Namath) to one of actual greatness, if only briefly, but deserving of these types of mentions.

Fact he did it against a renaissance season for Wilt makes it all the more impressive.

How many have won all available MVPs in the same season?

I know people sometimes like to discredit some of the MVPs of recent years, like Nash and Nowitkzki and even Kobe. But Willis Reed's League MVP definitely has some serious qualifiers and disclaimers. You mention him winning the League MVP in Wilt's "renaissance season" is somewhat confusing. In the 1969-70 NBA season, Wilt only played in 12 games in the regular season. He injured his knee and sat out most of the year. Wilt probably would have won his 5th League MVP that season. Also important to note is that Bill Russell had retired after the 1968-69 season, so technically Willis Reed didn't beat out either of those guys for that 1970 League MVP.

Regardless, still an amazing season for Reed.

[HarlemHeat37]

Would be an odd "requirement" to be on that level when a player not on that level can and has achieved it. And, I will stress the fact that it's an accomplishment that represents only one season. A player can just have an unbelievable season where he puts it all together, things just bounce the right way for him, some lucky breaks or circumstances (as I explain with Willis Reed below), but the rest of that player's career is less than the greatness of that one season. Doing it multiple times has a stronger case, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

I would liken it to the triple crown in MLB baseball. A player can have a season for the ages, win the triple crown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that player is one of the best of the bests. A couple triple crown winners aren't even in the baseball Hall of Fame. And the two players considered the best of all time, Babe Ruth and Willy Mays, didn't accomplish the feat.

It's an unbelievable thing to win League MVP and Finals MVP in the same season. But it does take help from your team to actually get to the Finals to have a chance at it. It relies on teammates and some luck. Certainly shouldn't be a requirement to be considered the "best of the best," although so far it seems the best of the best have done it.

Fair enough points, however again, I never said it was the "only thing" that puts somebody on that list..I realize it's only one season, but it doesn't really take away anything for me, I still view it as a season where the most possible dominance was displayed..

As for the bolded part, that's part of the reason I made this thread, I don't think it's a coincidence as to whom is on the list..

[JMarkJohns]

I know people sometimes like to discredit some of the MVPs of recent years, like Nash and Nowitkzki and even Kobe. But Willis Reed's League MVP definitely has some serious disclaimers. You mention him winning the League MVP in Wilt's "renaissance season" is somewhat confusing. In the 1969-70 NBA season, Wilt only played in 12 games in the regular season. He injured his knee and sat out most of the year. Wilt probably would have won his 5th League MVP that season. Also important to note is that Bill Russell had retired after the 1968-69 season, so technically Willis Reed didn't beat out either of those guys for that 1970 League MVP.

Regardless, still an amazing season for Reed.

I was talking about the Finals MVP and their head-to-head matchup. Didn't word it clearly. The "renaissance" mention was a mistaken comment from a passing glance at Wilt's stats from the season/postseason. Looked at minutes played, didn't look at games. Should have. Clearly that injury changes the significance of posting some of his better seasonal averages in a few years.

[JMarkJohns]

The only relevance this statement has is that it proves my point even further. Logo is the only player in the history of the game to win the MVP award as a loser. Now, since you went there, which award is greater?

Your point was one must win to be successful and take the honor. Albeit one exception, it stands on contradiction of your assertion.

And, if you'd notice, nobody is trying to diminish the legacies of Lakers. Two were mentioned in the initial post. Hell, I even defending the comparisons since the initial inquiry seemed to be asking if this great feat made a player even greater than those greats without it.

Hows abouts you settle down and realize it's not Laker fans vs. the World.

And, despite asking me a real question, I'm not dumb enough to think anything I say one way or the other will be accepted. If you really care, ask again. But I doubt you do.

[Koolaid_Man]

Duncan also takes plays and games off (under Pops Supervision) whereas Kobe plays through tiredness, injuries, and pain. At the end of the day it's simple...Duncan won 4 rings and he's done. Kobe won 5 and he's still going strong. So i will allow the Spurs fans to reminisce because in essence all they're really saying is thanks Tim for the memories and goodbye. Spurs will never sniff another title in our lifetime. Their future also looks bleak with regards to players. They tanked got Duncan and their titles now it's a slow demise...Me Imma get my popcorn ready and watch this collapse unfold to completion.

[JMarkJohns]

I could have added the exception in my previous post. But you forced me to play my ace of spade before I wanted to. The fact that Logo won the award as a loser shows that the award is bullshit to begin with. The fact that the criteria to win the award changes from generation to generation also shows that the award is bullshit. Titles trumps everything. If you are the leader of the team that won the title, then nothing else is a greater accomplishment... unless you defend that title.:toast

I would agree that there's an additional level of eliteness one achieves as a great player when said player is the leader of back-to-back Champions.

But what do I know. I'm just a Titleless Fuckin' Ofer...

You shouldn't assume that I don't understand the significance of something just because I haven't/never experienced one. I don't have nor have I experienced $1,000,000. Doesn't mean I don't understand how such would change things. My lackings make me appreciate such even more, so ya know.

I'm not fan of fun (so my fandom extends beyond the Nash era). I'm a fan of winning. It's just my effin' curse to be born in Phoenix and grow up watching Kevin Johnson, whom Chick Hearn once referred to as "one of the greatest PGs to ever play the game".

[JMarkJohns]

:lmao

Don't take this shit to sleep with you, man. I just like talking shit.:toast

I don't take this shit, as in the message board banter anywhere. But have I lost sleep over my fandom's failings? you ferakin' bet. It's what makes me a true fan. And if 0-fer ever bothered me, I got over it a decade ago, since that's how long I've seen the countdown by Cubby go.

It was early 30's when I first saw him post in a Suns forum on ESPN.com.

[Nathan89]

Due to the fact that the regular season MVP award is mostly a popularity contest, and I'm sure most people would agree, I personally place the finals MVP award above it because you are playing for all the marbles.

Chew on this:

Oh shit, Tim Duncan won a popularity contest. I bet he won that contest because he is so exciting for people to watch. It is either that or he was so dominate that they could not refuse giving him the regular season mvp or the nba would look like a joke. You just boosted the greatness of duncan up by calling the regular season mvp a popularity contest. That is one contest duncan would not win. So he gave the people no choice two times.

:owned

[21_Blessings]

Chew on this:


:flag: The drive for back to back to back to back premature playoff exits :flag:

[Nathan89]

:flag: The drive for back to back to back to back premature playoff exits :flag:

You tried to insult the spurs because my statement was full of truth. You could disagree with anything I said because I am right. Next time just say "you are right nathan89". I already made one of you laker fans say "your right and I am wrong" now you should do the same.

[HarlemHeat37]

:lol What a terrible argument..

[HarlemHeat37]

Really? Well how in the hell is Durant the leading candidate with 40% of the votes to get the MVP before the season has even started? How did Lebron drop to third behind Kobe and Durant when his team should be much better this year, which is the second most important criteria for winning the award. What has Durant done to lead anyone to believe that he's an MVP favorite? All of this favoritism and speculation by the writers that vote on this award is a joke. James is not the favorite because he has fallen from grace. Kobe only won due to sympathy, now they have exalted Durant, a guy whose team barely made the playoffs last year.

This was not your day, huh.

:lol You're projecting MVP votes before the season starts as your argument?..

If Durant undeservedly wins MVP, then you can talk..

[FkLA]

He doesn't need to.

What I do know is that Kobe is sitting on 25,790 career points for # 12 on the NBA all time list. After this season he will leap frog basically 6 spots to sit comfortably in the 6th spot behind Shaq ( no pun intended). He will pass up players 6-11:

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 38, 387 pts
2. Karl Malone - 36, 928 pts
3. Michael Jordan -, 292 pts
4. Wilt Chamberlain - 31, 419 pts
5. Shaq Oneal - 28, 255 pts
6. Moses Malone - 27, 409 pts (This will Kobe’s spot after this season)
7. Elvin Hayes - 27,313 pts
8. Hakeem Olajuwon -26, 946 pts
9. Oscar Robertson - 26,710 pts
10. Dominique Wilkens - 26,668 pts
11. John Havlicek - 26, 395 pts
12. The Black Mamba - 25,790 pts

So let me take you on math journey since. Over his career Kobe averages 1842 pts/yr. The last 5 seasons though ( which is more relevant) he’s avg 2351 pts/yr including with injuries. Last year was an off season injury plagued season for Kobe in which he scored only 1970 pts, still better than his career avg but below the last 5 seasons mark. So I estimate that next year a healthy Kobe will avg about 2000-2200 pts in order to sacrifice his game for the team. Let’s take the low end and say 2000 pts that comfortable put him at 27,790 pts and his 6th place all-time. In 2012 he will pass Shaq up ( while Shaq is still playing for 5th all time). But let’s say factoring age , Bynum’s emergence , more ball movement , and desire to save himself for the play-offs his numbers dip in each succeeding year. let’s say it tapers off to about 1800 a season worst case scenario ( and at age 32) if Kobe plays just 7 more seasons he will be in sole possession of 1st place on the all time scoring list with with 38,390 pts . Or he can play 8 more seasons and and 1600/yr and he still beats the all-time mark by 200 pts with 38,590 pts

At any rate the path way to NBA immortality is paved for Kobe. He will top Kareem and MJ for 8 titles 3 more in his cards and will top Kareem in points solidifying his claim as the NBA’s greatest. These are hallowed records like baseball’s home run and for Kobe to be on the list as an active player and still dominating is the true measuring stick. See MVP awards are fine but they’re not symbolic of the effort. They’re more cosmetics than anything. Give me the bitch that doesn’t need make-up. Titles, scoring records, peer acknowledgment means more than anything.

Look at the list above again and look at the company Kobe is keeping and surpassing at the same time. Duncan, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowtski are no where near this list. I will let you haters marinate on that for minute. :toast

:lol

what a fag

scoring is one facet of the game son, the impact duncan had on a game offensively and defensively during his peak was clearly bigger than the impact kobe had during his peak and only a kobe dickrider like yourself would argue that...kobe is a great individual talent but we saw him failing to reach the playoffs/get out of the first round when he wasnt surrounded with great players like gasol and shaq.

duncan on the other hand anchored the best defensive team of the past decade and arguably one of the best defensive teams of all time. offensively he was the offense...it was throw it down into tim and let him go to work or have him kick out from the double/triple teams to the numerous shooters that came through SA and had career years. this was especially true during the mentioned 2003 season where he won regular season and finals mvp--this was ginobili's rookie year and parker's sophomore year before they had developed into the all-stars they are today.

duncan>kobe to anyone that follows basketball closely and isnt a kobe dickrider, numerous greats have said they would build a team around duncan before any other player of his generation. kobe very well might get more glory once both players are retired but that will have more to do with duncans quiet persona and him playing for the small-market spurs than anything else.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm not projecting anything, those who vote on the award is. Here is another one that is ridiculous. They got Lebron at number five, which blows the significance of the award you cherish so much out of the water, and at the same time proves my original point that the award is a popularity contest.

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/steve_aschburner/08/02/race.to.mvp/index.html

That's the opinion of 1 guy and his co-workers at NBA.com..I'm not even sure if that guy even gets an official MVP vote..those are predictions..

I bet you the majority of people didn't accurately predict most of the NBA MVP winners of the last decade before the season began..

[ezau]

He doesn't need to.

What I do know is that Kobe is sitting on 25,790 career points for # 12 on the NBA all time list. After this season he will leap frog basically 6 spots to sit comfortably in the 6th spot behind Shaq ( no pun intended). He will pass up players 6-11:

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 38, 387 pts
2. Karl Malone - 36, 928 pts
3. Michael Jordan -, 292 pts
4. Wilt Chamberlain - 31, 419 pts
5. Shaq Oneal - 28, 255 pts
6. Moses Malone - 27, 409 pts (This will Kobe’s spot after this season)
7. Elvin Hayes - 27,313 pts
8. Hakeem Olajuwon -26, 946 pts
9. Oscar Robertson - 26,710 pts
10. Dominique Wilkens - 26,668 pts
11. John Havlicek - 26, 395 pts
12. The Black Mamba - 25,790 pts

So let me take you on math journey since. Over his career Kobe averages 1842 pts/yr. The last 5 seasons though ( which is more relevant) he’s avg 2351 pts/yr including with injuries. Last year was an off season injury plagued season for Kobe in which he scored only 1970 pts, still better than his career avg but below the last 5 seasons mark. So I estimate that next year a healthy Kobe will avg about 2000-2200 pts in order to sacrifice his game for the team. Let’s take the low end and say 2000 pts that comfortable put him at 27,790 pts and his 6th place all-time. In 2012 he will pass Shaq up ( while Shaq is still playing for 5th all time). But let’s say factoring age , Bynum’s emergence , more ball movement , and desire to save himself for the play-offs his numbers dip in each succeeding year. let’s say it tapers off to about 1800 a season worst case scenario ( and at age 32) if Kobe plays just 7 more seasons he will be in sole possession of 1st place on the all time scoring list with with 38,390 pts . Or he can play 8 more seasons and and 1600/yr and he still beats the all-time mark by 200 pts with 38,590 pts

At any rate the path way to NBA immortality is paved for Kobe. He will top Kareem and MJ for 8 titles 3 more in his cards and will top Kareem in points solidifying his claim as the NBA’s greatest. These are hallowed records like baseball’s home run and for Kobe to be on the list as an active player and still dominating is the true measuring stick. See MVP awards are fine but they’re not symbolic of the effort. They’re more cosmetics than anything. Give me the bitch that doesn’t need make-up. Titles, scoring records, peer acknowledgment means more than anything.

Look at the list above again and look at the company Kobe is keeping and surpassing at the same time. Duncan, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowtski are no where near this list. I will let you haters marinate on that for minute. :toast

Nah, this only goes to show what a ballhog and self-absorbed prick Kobe is. End of discussion.

[Man In Black]

Bird and Duncan never did it.

Fact....Jordan and Duncan are UNDEFEATED IN NBA FINALS HISTORY. That's a .1000 Winning Percentage you whiny biatches Never Talk About. Complaining about Regular Season MVPs is fine, it's subjective. But because Bean will never be undefeated and the result is out there, he'll never surpass Jordan. Why else would many of you LAL fan or bandwagon call MJJ Jordone? Jealousy rears it's ugly head.

See, that's the rub. He's been beat...TWICE. Once in which he tried to take over and that resulted in a 4-1 Piston Title.
Once, in which he led his team to the greatest Finals defeat in history. To Boston, no less.

Back-to-back would be nice. But you guys make it seem like it's that way everywhere, when it's not. The NFL, it's rare. Same for hockey, same for any other sport. Sure it's been accomplished, but it's cyclical.

Prior to Pat Riley's promise for a repeat, the previous 18 seasons resulted had none. I expect no 3peat. Deep playoff runs and injuries will have the LAL not win a 3rd title in a row. Bean & PJax will fail to win another grouping of 3.

[ezau]

Fact....Jordan and Duncan are UNDEFEATED IN NBA FINALS HISTORY. That's a .1000 Winning Percentage you whiny biatches Never Talk About. Complaining about Regular Season MVPs is fine, it's subjective. But because Bean will never be undefeated and the result is out there, he'll never surpass Jordan. Why else would many of you LAL fan or bandwagon call MJJ Jordone? Jealousy rears it's ugly head.

See, that's the rub. He's been beat...TWICE. Once in which he tried to take over and that resulted in a 4-1 Piston Title.
Once, in which he led his team to the greatest Finals defeat in history. To Boston, no less.

Back-to-back would be nice. But you guys make it seem like it's that way everywhere, when it's not. The NFL, it's rare. Same for hockey, same for any other sport. Sure it's been accomplished, but it's cyclical.

Prior to Pat Riley's promise for a repeat, the previous 18 seasons resulted had none. I expect no 3peat. Deep playoff runs and injuries will have the LAL not win a 3rd title in a row. Bean & PJax will fail to win another grouping of 3.

You have a way of destroying Laker fans' arguments every single fucking time. :toast:toast Good thing you're a Spurs fan, brah.

[Kobe™]

Lakers are under .500 against playoff teams, are they really as good as their fans and the punkass 4 letter say they are?
Question!


3 Months & Some Change Later: :lobt2:

[JamStone]

Tangental question...

In the modern era of basketball (since the Magic/Bird 80s era), to be considered in that elite class of all time greats, does a player need to have a League MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic gold medal?

Jordan, Magic, Bird did it. Hakeem did it. Shaq did it. Kobe did it. All the greats of the greats did it (who had a chance to do it). Should it be a "requirement" to have that Olympic gold medal to be in that elite class of all time greats?

Your thoughts?

[Cry Havoc]

Does every truly great player have to have this on their resume?..I'm not talking about both awards throughout a career, I'm talking about winning both awards in the same season..

Duncan in 2003, Shaq in 2000, Jordan multiple times, Hakeem in 1994, Magic in 1987, Bird multiple times, Kareem multiple times, Wilt in 1967, Russell multiple times..

Those are all considered to be top 10 players by facts, accolades and logic..

To me, having this represents pure dominance throughout the entire year of basketball..dominating the league during the regular season, standing out as the best player of that season, and following it up with dominance during the playoffs, where it matters the most..

Can you truly be on this level without having this accomplishment on your resume?..

It's a tough question. I would say right now it's probably extremely difficult to judge this, for the simple fact that right now there are more elite players in the NBA than ever before. Not just top tier guys like Barkley and Ewing, but actually elite players, elite winners who are in a different stratosphere as far as their ability to take games over.

Wade, LeBron, Duncan, Durant, and Kobe (not to mention prime Shaq) would have absolutely murdered defenses in every other decade of basketball save perhaps the peak of the 90s. Dirk (who's probably a notch below the above mentioned) with his length and shot would have had maybe one or two players in the league that could even bother him. Chris Paul would have decimated defenses. Even Paul Pierce (who's vastly underrated, especially earlier in his career) would have contended for the scoring title every year in the 70s to early 80s. Say all you want about the rough style of play -- the 80s and the prior decades were a weak era defensively and had very little in the way of complex schemes designed to shut players down.

So, even though Kobe doesn't have a Finals MVP and a regular season MVP in the same season, I really can't lower his value as a player simply because we are in an era of the dominant superstar. It's not exactly a good thing for him, because obviously another regular season MVP would go a long way toward bolstering his claims as one of the top players of all-time.

I think it's just a bit early to even tell at this point. LeBron James is entering his prime, and Kevin Durant will be there soon. Kobe is going to be hard pressed to secure another regular season MVP, but I'm not sure that means his legacy will be damaged.

So, I think to be in perhaps the top 5 players, or perhaps even the top 8, you need an MVP and Finals MVP, but that's it. A player has a chance at the top 10 without it (which would have to be considered "great"), but once you get to that elite 8 status... the competition becomes very tough, especially a decade later when the active dominance of a player fades and all that's left are words about his legacy.

Look at the bolded list above. Aside from Durant, who's a bit young to be considered but could be as good or better than anyone on that list, who do you think is going to be left out of the top 15 players of all-time when they hang up their shoes? Maybe Wade? LeBron, if he does get rings, could wind up a top 5 or even top 3 of all-time, Duncan is easily top 10, maybe top 6, Kobe is top 10, Shaq is top 10, Wade will probably be top 20 at the absolute worst. So we (potentially) have 1/3rd of the top 15 players of all-time on the floor RIGHT NOW. Today. That's unbelievable. And really, aside from the top 3 spots occupied by Jordan, Jabbar, and Wilt, what position isn't reachable right now? You could make a pretty convincing argument to put Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq all in the top 7. When you add the potential of LeBron's career to that mix, it gets pretty crazy.

[TheGreatest23]

- This thread isn't about Kobe, I didn't mention him at all in my OP, so I have no idea why you brought him up..

- Defending a title is definitely a nice thing to have on the resume, but titles are won by teams, not individuals..winning regular season MVP AND Finals MVP means you dominated the entire year of basketball, and that you were unquestionably the best player in the league for the entire year..it combines both individual accolades AND winning, not just winning, which is more team-oriented..

Finals MVP means you dominated the FINALS. You can suck for the first 3 rounds.

[Cry Havoc]

Going undefeated in the finals is ok, but the playoffs are the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you lose in the first round or the finals, at the end of the you still lost. What I find amazing is you all claim Duncan was the best player of his generation. The best player of his generation and yet he's only been able to get there 4 times. Duncan has been the only player of his generation to play his full career with a team that was a contender, and yet he's only visited the finals 4 times. The only reason for this set back for Duncan was the emergence of Kobe. If Kobe had stayed with the team that drafted him, Duncan's career would have been much greater.

Head to head, Kobe shits on Duncan. The four times that Kobe shitted on Duncan would have been guaranteed titles for Duncan. This is why Pop vehemently cursed the league when Kobe finally received help. He knew that Duncan's career was over and his coaching job was at stake. See, you all are dumb fans that have hope, but Pop knew for a fact that the reign of Kobe was resurrected and he and Duncan would go back to living in Kobe's shadow. The only thing that's stopping the Lakers from three-peating is time. Dr. Buss is already sizing up rings.:rollin

You are seriously one of the worst posters on this site. I know you like talking trash, but considering that's all you do, reading your posts get tiresome after maybe the 3rd time you post the same inane BS.

[JamStone]

Fact....Jordan and Duncan are UNDEFEATED IN NBA FINALS HISTORY. That's a .1000 Winning Percentage you whiny biatches Never Talk About. Complaining about Regular Season MVPs is fine, it's subjective. But because Bean will never be undefeated and the result is out there, he'll never surpass Jordan. Why else would many of you LAL fan or bandwagon call MJJ Jordone? Jealousy rears it's ugly head.

See, that's the rub. He's been beat...TWICE. Once in which he tried to take over and that resulted in a 4-1 Piston Title.
Once, in which he led his team to the greatest Finals defeat in history. To Boston, no less.

Back-to-back would be nice. But you guys make it seem like it's that way everywhere, when it's not. The NFL, it's rare. Same for hockey, same for any other sport. Sure it's been accomplished, but it's cyclical.

Prior to Pat Riley's promise for a repeat, the previous 18 seasons resulted had none. I expect no 3peat. Deep playoff runs and injuries will have the LAL not win a 3rd title in a row. Bean & PJax will fail to win another grouping of 3.

Never understood this criticism. It's better to lose in the first round, second round, or conference finals than losing in the NBA Finals? How does that make sense? Going undefeated when making it to the NBA Finals is impressive, especially when a player has that opportunity to be in the Finals multiple times. But, I don't think it's all that more impressive for player A to have gone 4-0 in the NBA Finals versus player be having gone 5-2 in the NBA Finals. I think getting to the NBA Finals is more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs.

Is Bill Russell's championship legacy somehow tarnished by his 11-1 record in the NBA Finals. Does that 1 Finals loss somehow drop him from being the greatest NBA winner ever? Does Jo Jo White being undefeated in the NBA Finals somehow mean he's a better winner than Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, both of whom lost in the NBA Finals?

Never understood this argument.

[TD 21]

You're a laughing riot trying to imply you and fellow Spur fans are knowledgeable. Duncan is no where close to Kobe's skill level and athleticism. He could never score with Kobe...Kobe would and has shitted on Duncan's accomplishments. Duncan compared to Kobe will be relegated to a footnote in history. No outside of San Antonio even considers Duncan in Kobe's league, titles or not.

Thank goodness Spike Lee did his documentary while Kobe was putting the Spurs away. That is an immortal piece of work. Classic and Timeless, and I'm grateful for it and I want to shed a tear like Fisher after game 6 of the WCSF in '03. Because it symbolizes the death of the Spurs and it went out to basketball fans around the world. :toast

Xga1YIu1Yog

I never implied fellow Spurs fans were knowledgeable, genius. Not that they're not, obviously it's a case by case type thing. I'm not going to make a blanket statement one way or the other, just like I wouldn't with any other fan base.

If you don't think prime Duncan's skill level wasn't "close to Bryant's", then you have no credibility because it's an indication of how little you know about the game. What's with the scoring obsession? There's more to the game than that. As I said though, if Duncan was a selfish, stats obsessed gunner and fired away relentlessly, he easily could have tacked on a couple more thousand regular season points.

Not only is Duncan in Bryant's league, Duncan is still greater than him historically to anyone who's not a Lakers fan, is knowledgeable about the game and doesn't have a vested interest in propping up Bryant.

You like stats so much, here's one of my favorites...

Career playoff leaders for win shares...

6. Tim Duncan 28.61
9. Kobe Bryant 26.12

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html

But wait, it get's better...

Bryant is 5th in minutes played at 7811 and 6th in games played at 198, while Duncan is 14th in minutes played at 6740 and 17th in games played at 170.

That should give you a pretty good indication of who's had a greater impact on not just the games, but more importantly, the most important games.

Duncan is also superior to Bryant in regular season win shares despite also playing less minutes/games and he's a more efficient regular season and playoff performer.

But why let facts get in the way? The media's told us that Bryant has left Duncan, O'Neal, heck even Johnson and Bird, in the dust and is now chasing down Jordan, so it must be true that he's better than all of them.

[TheMACHINE]

You have a way of destroying Laker fans' arguments every single fucking time. :toast:toast Good thing you're a Spurs fan, brah.

destroying Lakers fans arguement?

Would you rather go 8 for 12 or 4 for 4? I just destroyed his arguement.

8 titles > 4 titles.

[Man In Black]

The only reason for this set back for Duncan was the emergence of Kobe. If Kobe had stayed with the team that drafted him, Duncan's career would have been much greater. Who was mostly responsible for those 3 titles the first go-around? IS it the emergence of Kobe or the foundation that was Shaq? If you say emergence, then explain...why did the MVP's go to the pivot? Also...we all saw what happened when Kobe tried to get that MVP against the Pistons. Shaq shot a high % but never saw the ball the way he did in previous finals.


Would you rather go 8 for 12 or 4 for 4? I just destroyed his arguement.

8 titles > 4 titles.


Okay, Machine...how many titles does Bean have again? 5! How many of those is he seen as the primary reason that his team won? 2. That's it....TWO.

So how you got to 8 is nothing but premature ejaculation. Kobe ain't winning 8. I could see him win a possible 6th but that would be it. You guys make it seem as if he doesn't age, when in fact, because of his type of game, he is feeling the lingering effects of age. How many times have you heard him say, "If I was younger...". Even he knows. Not saying he can't continue to be amazing. He, like Tim, has a foundation of fundamental brilliance. His shines brighter because he plays in LA. But Tim's individual stats and accomplishments stand toe-to-toe with Bean, and in some cases...wins out.

Duncan has 4 titles and in every title, his indelible imprint is the reason why they've won. Not just offensively, but defensively as well. There is a reason why Duncan has the most placements on the ALL-NBA D Team. Kobe's played 1 more season than Duncan and doesn't have more placements than Tim.


Never understood this criticism. It's better to lose in the first round, second round, or conference finals than losing in the NBA Finals? How does that make sense? Going undefeated when making it to the NBA Finals is impressive, especially when a player has that opportunity to be in the Finals multiple times. But, I don't think it's all that more impressive for player A to have gone 4-0 in the NBA Finals versus player be having gone 5-2 in the NBA Finals. I think getting to the NBA Finals is more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs.
While you make a compelling argument, many fans and writers will ding a star for leading his team to a Championship loss. It's the time where the nation's undivided attention is on your sport, and as the bona fide leader, your play dictates if you did enough or did not. If LeBron's lack of titles is heaped upon his shoulders is okay, the same applies to leaders that have losses in their record.

[HarlemHeat37]

I completely disagree with using the "undefeated Finals record" in Duncan's favor..I'm pretty sure Tim would have rather made more Finals and lost, than not have made them at all..there are plenty of arguments to use in Duncan's favor against Kobe, but I'm not a fan of this one..

[redzero]

I completely disagree with using the "undefeated Finals record" in Duncan's favor..I'm pretty sure Tim would have rather made more Finals and lost, than not have made them at all..there are plenty of arguments to use in Duncan's favor against Kobe, but I'm not a fan of this one..

I agree with that sentiment.

[JamStone]

Tim Duncan had a greater impact than Kobe Bryant. But I do think Kobe Bryant had more talent than Duncan. As for skill, for each of them, they were among the most skilled players at their position. I think one could make a case that Kobe is the more skilled player but Duncan is one of the most skilled big men ever. And regardless, skill doesn't equal dominance or greatness. Right now, Duncan goes down as the better player in the history books. He's accomplished more individually as a player. I think that's how it will end up too unless Kobe has an incredible finish to his career. As far as who was the better player or more talented player, there's definitely an argument for Kobe over Duncan. But that alone doesn't define greatness.

I do recall Duncan himself calling Kobe the best player on the planet a few years ago, or something to that effect. Kobe critics like to discredit him, but for much of this decade, many if not most NBA players and coaches regarded Kobe as the best player in the league. I think people started thinking LeBron took over, which I myself had thought starting a couple seasons ago. But with LeBron's failure to get that elusive title, I think some of those same people have reneged on that notion.

There are different ways to define greatness. I think a lot of factors are considered, from individual dominance to skill/talent to having that translate into team success. Duncan's resume outshine's Kobe's right now. Kobe's individual talent might have been greater, but that doesn't mean he's been better.

[picc84]

Duncan's overall O and D impact was probably greater than Kobe's, in the grand scheme of things. Which makes it all the more interesting that in almost every playoff series between the two, the impact of Kobe's volume scoring on one end seemed to completely eclipse Duncan's post scoring and defensive anchoring put together.

[JamStone]

While you make a compelling argument, many fans and writers will ding a star for leading his team to a Championship loss. It's the time where the nation's undivided attention is on your sport, and as the bona fide leader, your play dictates if you did enough or did not. If LeBron's lack of titles is heaped upon his shoulders is okay, the same applies to leaders that have losses in their record.

Who is paying attention and how many people paying attention isn't a very convincing argument, at least to me. Once you're in the playoffs, it's time to show up. Losing in the playoffs before the NBA Finals is not better than losing in the NBA Finals. Period.

Tim has won 4 titles in 12 seasons (I won't count the 1999-2000 season when he was injured for those playoffs)

Kobe has won 5 titles in 14 seasons (I count 2004-05 where the Lakers missed the playoffs)

That's how I look at it. I don't praise a player going undefeated in the NBA Finals just because he wasn't able to get to the NBA Finals 8 times. And I'm not going to discredit a player for losing in the NBA Finals when it's an accomplishment just getting there.

If a player played 10 seasons in the NBA and went to 10 NBA Finals and went undefeated, then you could use the argument. Not when a player goes 4-for-4 in the NBA Finals but missed out even reaching there 8 times.

Again, it's not better to lose early on in the playoffs than rather to get to the NBA Finals and lose. It seriously doesn't make for a sound argument.

[TD 21]

Go to a bar and start talking about win shares and minutes played and see if some random person don't crack a fucking beer bottle over your thick ass head. Is Kobe that great that you have to dig deep just to find ways to make Duncan relevant? Duncan had a decent career, but it's over, it's over. Kobe is still on top of the world.

What does that have to do with anything? Who gives a fuck what you think would happen in a bar. We're not in a bar, we're on a message board. I'm not going to entirely base my opinion off of win shares and efficiency obviously, but it's a good indicator of the level of impact Duncan has had compared to Bryant. The fact that he's done it in less games/minutes makes it all the more impressive.

If not this upcoming season, then by the following one what happened to the Spurs after the Gasol "trade" is going to happen to the Lakers after the Heat's heist and when it does, I and many others are going to enjoy shoving it down you arrogant pricks throats to no end.

[picc84]

Who was mostly responsible for those 3 titles the first go-around? IS it the emergence of Kobe or the foundation that was Shaq? If you say emergence, then explain...why did the MVP's go to the pivot? Also...we all saw what happened when Kobe tried to get that MVP against the Pistons. Shaq shot a high % but never saw the ball the way he did in previous finals.


Shaq was mostly responsible for the finals victories, but when it came time for the Lakers to end Tim Duncan's season and title hopes, it was Kobe who was heading out to pasture with a plastic bag and machete in hand. So his point remains...Duncan has at least 3 ringless fingers that he can personally thank Mr. Bryant for.

[Nathan89]

Shaq was mostly responsible for the finals victories, but when it came time for the Lakers to end Tim Duncan's season and title hopes, it was Kobe who was heading out to pasture with a plastic bag and machete in hand. So his point remains...Duncan has at least 3 ringless fingers that he can personally thank Mr. Bryant for.

Kobe has at least two fingers with rings that he can personally think the officials for. Why you guys always hugging kobe's nuts? He has been the second best player on his team/been helped by the official/blown finals appearance/choked in a game 7 in the finals/has had a ass load of talented role players but barely is able to win. None of that applies to Tim Duncan.

[JamStone]

Duncan has choked in a game 7 in the Finals.

[picc84]

Kobe has at least two fingers with rings that he can personally think the officials for. Why you guys always hugging kobe's nuts? He has been the second best player on his team/been helped by the official/blown finals appearance/choked in a game 7 in the finals/has had a ass load of talented role players but barely is able to win. None of that applies to Tim Duncan.

:rollin

[ezau]

destroying Lakers fans arguement?

Would you rather go 8 for 12 or 4 for 4? I just destroyed his arguement.

8 titles > 4 titles.

If you think that losing by 39 points in the Finals against your most hated rival is ok, then you win:toast

[ezau]

Duncan's overall O and D impact was probably greater than Kobe's, in the grand scheme of things. Which makes it all the more interesting that in almost every playoff series between the two, the impact of Kobe's volume scoring on one end seemed to completely eclipse Duncan's post scoring and defensive anchoring put together.

What volume scoring? Bryant didn't eclipse Duncan, brah. It was a dominant Shaq from 00-02 that made things so difficult for Duncan.

[ezau]

Duncan has choked in a game 7 in the Finals.

Is it worse than getting destroyed by your archrival by as much as 39 points, in the Finals?

[cobbler]

If you think that losing by 39 points in the Finals against your most hated rival is ok, then you win:toast

Of course its not OK and no true Laker would would tell you it was. But it would have been infinitesimally worse had we not made it to the finals to begin with. Anyone saying it's better to lose prior to the finals than to lose in the finals... has never played competitive sports... or is a born loser. It's just pure nonsense.

[JamStone]

Is it worse than getting destroyed by your archrival by as much as 39 points, in the Finals?

Which is worse is not what I was refuting or even discussing.

I refuted the claim and comment that Duncan has never choked in a game 7 of the Finals like Kobe has.

[ezau]

Which is worse is not what I was refuting or even discussing.

I refuted the claim and comment that Duncan has never choked in a game 7 of the Finals like Kobe has.

I don't have any idea how someone who puts up 25 and 11 in Game 7 of the Finals can be considered choking. You might spit on Duncan's offensive output, his shot selection, or anything related to his offense, but defensively, you can't put that in the "choking" category.

[JamStone]

I don't have any idea how someone who puts up 25 and 11 in Game 7 of the Finals can be considered choking. You might spit on Duncan's offensive output, his shot selection, or anything related to his offense, but defensively, you can't put that in the "choking" category.

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

[cesare borgia]

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

"Damn You're Good"

[DAF86]

lol 25% from the field
lol like 10 FT attempts in the 4th

[cobbler]

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

Pure Ownage! But it is exau... soooo nothing new here.

[ezau]

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

I cannot recall calling Kobe's performance in Game 7 choking, although I have encountered posters here who criticize his woeful 6/24 FG shooting. At the end of the day, both guys won the championship in 2005 and 2010 and that's all that matters.

If you're trying to discredit my arguments because you think I'm claiming Kobe "choked" and performed below expectations in game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals, then I'm not that guy.

However, I still think that letting his team lose by 39 points in the 2008 NBA Finals is inexcusable.

[HarlemHeat37]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive competition was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

[ezau]

Pure Ownage! But it is exau... soooo nothing new here.

LOL at a Laker fan needing the help of a Pistons fan to argue for his team:toast

[JamStone]

I cannot recall calling Kobe's performance in Game 7 choking, although I have encountered posters here who criticize his woeful 6/24 FG shooting. At the end of the day, both guys won the championship in 2005 and 2010 and that's all that matters.

If you're trying to discredit my arguments because you think I'm claiming Kobe "choked" and performed below expectations in game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals, then I'm not that guy.

However, I still think that letting his team lose by 39 points in the 2008 NBA Finals is inexcusable.

I didn't say you said Kobe choke. But you quoted my post which was responding to Nathan89's inference that Kobe's game 7 was a choke. If you read what I was responding to and realized that, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten into misconstruing the comment in the first place.

As for the 39 point loss, it is what it is. It was embarrassing for Kobe and the Lakers. The only thing they could do is find redemption. Winning the next two NBA titles was a good start.

Oh, and I'm not sure how long you've been a Spurs fan, but how about getting swept in the playoffs and in the final two games losing by "39" points and then 29 points even with homecourt advantage? Shrugs, embarrassing things happen sometimes to the best NBA players and the best teams.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210525013
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210527013

[ezau]

Duncan just got swept. That's is bad as it gets. You can't even win one fucking game!!!

Ok, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[HarlemHeat37]

I've already defeated the idiot who started the thread. Notice he don't have shit to say about his bogus claim. Now you've been defeated as well.

:lol What?..I already replied to your poor arguments..stop giving yourself phantom Ws..

You freaked out about my OP and Kobe, even though I didn't even mention him:lol..talk about insecurity..

Shit, I had the last reply in our "argument", in which you couldn't reply to:lol..

[ezau]

I didn't say you said Kobe choke. But you quoted my post which was responding to Nathan89's inference that Kobe's game 7 was a choke. If you read what I was responding to and realized that, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten into misconstruing the comment in the first place.

As for the 39 point loss, it is what it is. It was embarrassing for Kobe and the Lakers. The only thing they could do is find redemption. Winning the next two NBA titles was a good start.

Oh, and I'm not sure how long you've been a Spurs fan, but how about getting swept in the playoffs and in the final two games losing by "39" points and then 29 points even with homecourt advantage? Shrugs, embarrassing things happen sometimes to the best NBA players and the best teams.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210525013
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210527013

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.

[ezau]

I've already defeated the idiot who started the thread. Notice he don't have shit to say about his bogus claim. Now you've been defeated as well.

:lol:lol okay

[duhoh]

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

:toast

i wouldn't care what team affiliation JamStone would put, i'd still read his stuff.

at the end, will it matter whether what spurs fan says about duncan>kobe? they're both first ballots for springfield, and given kobe's popularity, he WILL be remembered as the better player. in most aspects of the game, kobe>duncan. who do i like far more? duncan, no questions asked. being in the same sentence as the likes of kobe/shaq is not a bad thing at all. the players in that fading generation only those 3 will be remembered by everyone.

QFT spurs fans. rising to bait like this. bunch a little headless chickens running around.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Typically, these arguments tend to carry on and on with both sides claiming victory.

Let's get a couple of facts out of the way. The true finals isn't always the NBA finals. 1999-2003, whoever won the west was going to win it all, period. If Shaq doesn't have Kobe running rampant on the Spurs in 2001-02, Lakers don't advance.

So, let's make whole new argument, one I rarely if ever see. Kobe couldn't win without Shaq? How about Tim couldn't win without the Admiral? Yes, I know Tim was the finals MVP in 1999 and 2003, but DRob was on the team.

I remember watching the 2005 finals and the announcers said it was important for Duncan to win without Robinson, to validate his greatness once and for all.. Gee, heard that last year about how important it was for Kobe to win without Shaq.

So, who was the better duo, Shaq and Kobe or Tim and David? It's only fair to ask this if Spurs fans are pulling the Kobe had Shaq card out!

Here's a breakdown of the results as the teams changed key players. I thnk it's fair to start it when the championships started and the Jordan Bulls were dismantled:

Duncan and Robinson vs. Shaq and Kobe:
1999 Spurs beat Lakers
2000 Lakers win championship, Duncan injured for playoffs
2001 Lakers beat Spurs
2002 Lakers beat Spurs
2003 Spurs beat Lakers

Lakers 3 titles, Spurs 2 titles
Head to head 2-2 Who would have won in 2000 if Duncan was playing is pure speculation, but they would have met in WCSF with Lakers having HCA. I believe the Spurs won the season series 3-1.

==========

Duncan vs, Shaq and Kobe:
2004 Lakers beat Spurs

Lakers 0 titles, head to head 1-0

==========

Duncan Vs. Kobe:
2005 Spurs win title Lakers miss playoffs
2006 Mavs beat Spurs
2007 Spurs win title

Spurs 2 titles, no head to head

==========

Duncan vs. Kobe and Gasol:
2008 Lakers beat Spurs
2009 Lakers win title
2010 Lakers win title

Lakers 2 titles, head to head Lakers 1-0

==========

Who lasted the longest in the playoffs?
1999 Spurs
2000 Lakers
2001 Lakers
2002 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2004 Lakers
2005 Spurs
2006 SPurs
2007 Spurs
2008 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2010 Lakers

Score: Lakers 7 Spurs 5
Finals played: Lakers 7 (5-2) Spurs 4 (4-0)
Head to Head: Lakers 4 Spurs 2

==========

As long as both Duncan and Kobe play, this scorecard is not complete. I'll let you folks interpret it.

Edit: I don't know if I should add Parker and Ginobili in or not from 2004 on. Key players usually change.

[HarlemHeat37]

This has nothing to do with the thread, please stop polluting my thread..if you want to discuss what you posted about, make a thread about it, please..I'm asking you politely, so don't be sad, raise the bar..

[FkLA]

Comparing the Duncan/Robinson duo to Kobe/Shaq or even Kobe/Gasol is beyond stupid...99' is really the only year where Robinson was still somewhat dominant. In 2000 Duncan was out for the playoffs with his knee injury, and by 2001 D-Rob's back problems had caught up with him making him a shell of his former self. Kobe's robin Gasol, or in Shaq's case batman, were in their prime when they were paired with Kobe. No comparison at all.

[Killakobe81]

Tim Duncan had a greater impact than Kobe Bryant. But I do think Kobe Bryant had more talent than Duncan. As for skill, for each of them, they were among the most skilled players at their position. I think one could make a case that Kobe is the more skilled player but Duncan is one of the most skilled big men ever. And regardless, skill doesn't equal dominance or greatness. Right now, Duncan goes down as the better player in the history books. He's accomplished more individually as a player. I think that's how it will end up too unless Kobe has an incredible finish to his career. As far as who was the better player or more talented player, there's definitely an argument for Kobe over Duncan. But that alone doesn't define greatness.

I do recall Duncan himself calling Kobe the best player on the planet a few years ago, or something to that effect. Kobe critics like to discredit him, but for much of this decade, many if not most NBA players and coaches regarded Kobe as the best player in the league. I think people started thinking LeBron took over, which I myself had thought starting a couple seasons ago. But with LeBron's failure to get that elusive title, I think some of those same people have reneged on that notion.

There are different ways to define greatness. I think a lot of factors are considered, from individual dominance to skill/talent to having that translate into team success. Duncan's resume outshine's Kobe's right now. Kobe's individual talent might have been greater, but that doesn't mean he's been better.

Agree with most of this but ... (see above bold) I think that is pretty debatable. If both end there careers right now I doubt that "history" will say that Duncan was better. Yes duncan has more MVP titles and i think that he is better than Shaq (but there are even Spur fans that debate if Duncan is the better big man over Shaq)...but not Kobe. I do think Duncan benefits from playing a position that was relatively weak (in terms of a definitive or general consensus) class of winners at PF. Barkley and Malone are great but since they did not ring it gives duncan an obvious edge. Put him with centers or group him with big men and Duncan no longer is a slam dunk best player at his position. Kobe on the other hand is compared to the GOAT and regardless of what he does his last few years...will never catch him in "history".

My point is, that some in history could argue shaq was beter than duncan he definitely is more memorable in the general casual fan's eye ....but that does not make it so. and even though i agree (so far) duncan has accomplished more individually ...same with kobe, who has more rings, will have more points, he has always had more recognition etc. but may not have accomplished as much as an individual but even that is debatable.

I also disagree that duncan has had more impact on the league. Duncan is a big man and big man have won in the Nba from Mikan to Bill to Kareem to Moses to hakeem to Shaq to Tim. That is NOT an impact of historic porportions. Logic dicates if you have the BEST big man you are SUPPOSED to win more often than not. Kobe to me historically has little "impact" in terms of significance since Jordan led 6 teams to titles at his position before he could and non center dominated title teams are rare.

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater. But for those that argue duncan ....one thing i definitely concede is that duncan had wayyyy more impact ON HIS FRANCHISE. There is no debate or disputing this. Without duncan (MOST LIKELY) Spurs are still ringless with the Mavs and suns over the world. Without duncan this site is probaly far less entertaining and duncan put San antonio basketbal on the "big stage".
Lakers won before kobe and will win titles after he is gone (may take a while but we will ... God it's good to be a laker fan).

If franchise significance is the tie-breaker then I would give duncan the edge.

Duncan as great as he is and was ...will be the guy that true basketball fans like myself that will have to bring up when people argue, at work, barbershops and at tailgate parties etc . Was one of the best big men I had ever seen. Only true hoop heads like Jamstone and Spur fans will be giving duncan his props ...i do the same when people dismis Hakeem as a two year wonder. My guess is because he was not flashy duncan will have even les support ...down the road.

Oh and as for the OP ...this is silly. You can do whatever you want to kep Kobe out of a best player debate but he is in there. Duncan should be as well. But as Jamstone said so is Willis Reed ... if we use the Harlem method for seperating elite HOF'ers

[Koolaid_Man]

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.


Some good reading: :toast

Double Standard 1: Everyone harps on Kobe for playing with Shaq, yet no one harps on Duncan for having Manu, Parker, Bowen and other amazing players.
Shaq has played in the NBA 18 seasons, he only has 4 rings, he is not an automatic championship. In fact, he was not even in his physical prime during the threepeat championship run. He was significantly overweight almost every season during that run.

Double Standard 2: Duncan has played on a contending, elite team since he came into the NBA. Kobe has been rebuilding for 3 seasons in the 2000's (2005,2006,2007) and still has more rings in the decade.

Myth 1: Duncan has more impact for his team .

Kobe's Roles for his team:

-Primary Scorer
-Primary Defender
-Primary go to player in 4th
-Primary playmaker

Duncan's Roles for team:

-Not a primary scorer (very well-balanced scoring)
-Bowen is the primary defender (Duncan anchors the paint, but Bowen denies penetration, guards best players on other team)
-Manu and Parker are the go to guys in the 4th (Duncan also has his moments, but he is not self-sufficient)
-Parker is the primary playmaker

Myth 2: Duncan is more dominant than Kobe.

If you are going to call Duncan dominant, I guess we should call Kevin Garnett and Elton Brand dominant as well. Don't confuse dominance with consistency. The truth of the matter is Kobe is far more dominant than Timmy.

80+ point games: Kobe 1, Duncan 0
70+ point games Kobe 1, Duncan 0
60+ point games: Kobe 4, Duncan 0
50+ point games: Kobe 24, Duncan 0
40+ point games: Kobe 100, Duncan 9

January 14, 2002: Kobe score 56 points in 3 quarters. Memphis scores 59 in 3 quarters.

December 20, 2005: Kobe outscores the entire Dallas Mavericks team 62-61 at the end of the third quarter. This is the first and only time a player has outscored a team after 3 quarters.

Kobe Bryant is the only player who has can outscore an entire opposing team, you dont' get any more dominant than that. No one else has come close to matching Kobe in that regard - not Shaq, not Jordan and definately not Duncan.

Myth 3: Tim Duncan is the most fundamentally sound player in the NBA.

Tim Duncan's game has weaknessses - free throw shooting, three point shooting.
Kobe Bryant's game does not have any weaknesses. He is the most complete player in the game.

Kobe Bryant:

5 Championships (2000,2001,2002, 2009, 2010)
7 NBA Finals (2000,2001,2002,2004,2008, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP
2 Scoring Titles (2006, 2007)
1 Gold Medal (2008)
2 All-Star MVP (2001,2007)
1 NBA MVP (2008)
8 NBA All NBA 1st team
8 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
3 30+ ppg seasons
6 2000+ point seasons
1 SDC (1996)

Tim Duncan:

4 Championships (1999,2003,2005,2007)
4 NBA Finals (1999,2003,2005,2007)
3 Finals MVP (1999,2003, 2005)
0 Scoring Titles
0 Gold Medals
1 All-Star MVP (2004)
2 NBA MVP (2003,2004)
9 NBA All NBA 1st team
9 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
0 30 ppg seasons
1 2000+ point seasons

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

No one gives a fuck how you ask. There you go acting like a little ho again.

He's my bitch lakaluva. I had to take you out to make room for his beatdowns. Cue in the redundant "But I have an all Spurstalk posting award" at any time now.

LOL, just mention Kobe Bryant around here and you get 10K posts and a lot of butthuurt fans on both sides, lol.

Look what I posted in the Kobe thread. Kobe admitted while getting his Finals MVP award his game 7 sucked and the haters didn't see it! Probably because they had their TV turned off in disgust when Kobe took the stage.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4564054&postcount=1058

[picc84]

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.

Suuure. The only reason you think its more 'significant' than the Spurs catching a 39 point beatdown in the midst of a sweep, where they had homecourt advantage, is because you're a Spurs fan. :lol

[FkLA]

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater.

In what sense? Scoring? Individual talent?

Cause as great as Kobe is thats about all he has on Duncan. Kobe definitely didnt have the impact Duncan had defensively, not even offensively either...Kobe can get his 30 anytime he wants but he didnt have that element Duncan had of drawing double/triple teams and most importantly being a willing passer. We all saw how Kobe fared when he wasnt surrounded with a stacked team. His individual talent is unquestioned, his ability to make teammates better is a different story. Thats what sets Duncan apart from Kobe in my opinion.

[Killakobe81]

Suuure. The only reason you think its more 'significant' than the Spurs catching a 39 point beatdown in the midst of a sweep, where they had homecourt advantage, is because you're a Spurs fan. :lol

Spur fan: But duncan didnt choke ...the Lakers were better!!!

Spur fan2: Duncan would never geta 39 point beatdown in the NBA finals so that PROVES Duncan is better ...

Spur fan3: The last 3 years dont matter ... SI and yahoo (?) said duncan was the player of the decade. (nevermind the other sites that chose Kobe)

[ezau]

So, which is worse, losing by 39 points in the finals, or earlier in the playoffs.:lmao

I think you know the answer by now. Weren't you about to kill yourself two years ago when the Cs dropped 39?

[picc84]

Agree with most of this but ... (see above bold) I think that is pretty debatable. If both end there careers right now I doubt that "history" will say that Duncan was better. Yes duncan has more MVP titles and i think that he is better than Shaq (but there are even Spur fans that debate if Duncan is the better big man over Shaq)...but not Kobe. I do think Duncan benefits from playing a position that was relatively weak (in terms of a definitive or general consensus) class of winners at PF. Barkley and Malone are great but since they did not ring it gives duncan an obvious edge. Put him with centers or group him with big men and Duncan no longer is a slam dunk best player at his position. Kobe on the other hand is compared to the GOAT and regardless of what he does his last few years...will never catch him in "history".

My point is, that some in history could argue shaq was beter than duncan he definitely is more memorable in the general casual fan's eye ....but that does not make it so. and even though i agree (so far) duncan has accomplished more individually ...same with kobe, who has more rings, will have more points, he has always had more recognition etc. but may not have accomplished as much as an individual but even that is debatable.

I also disagree that duncan has had more impact on the league. Duncan is a big man and big man have won in the Nba from Mikan to Bill to Kareem to Moses to hakeem to Shaq to Tim. That is NOT an impact of historic porportions. Logic dicates if you have the BEST big man you are SUPPOSED to win more often than not. Kobe to me historically has little "impact" in terms of significance since Jordan led 6 teams to titles at his position before he could and non center dominated title teams are rare.

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater. But for those that argue duncan ....one thing i definitely concede is that duncan had wayyyy more impact ON HIS FRANCHISE. There is no debate or disputing this. Without duncan (MOST LIKELY) Spurs are still ringless with the Mavs and suns over the world. Without duncan this site is probaly far less entertaining and duncan put San antonio basketbal on the "big stage".
Lakers won before kobe and will win titles after he is gone (may take a while but we will ... God it's good to be a laker fan).

If franchise significance is the tie-breaker then I would give duncan the edge.

Duncan as great as he is and was ...will be the guy that true basketball fans like myself that will have to bring up when people argue, at work, barbershops and at tailgate parties etc . Was one of the best big men I had ever seen. Only true hoop heads like Jamstone and Spur fans will be giving duncan his props ...i do the same when people dismis Hakeem as a two year wonder. My guess is because he was not flashy duncan will have even les support ...down the road.

Oh and as for the OP ...this is silly. You can do whatever you want to kep Kobe out of a best player debate but he is in there. Duncan should be as well. But as Jamstone said so is Willis Reed ... if we use the Harlem method for seperating elite HOF'ers

Its not fair to penalize Kobe for the Spurs franchise being 2nd tier and mostly worthless for 90% of the NBA's existence.

I think its safe to say that in terms of NBA legacy, Duncan will probably overshadow Kobe in terms of fan viewpoint until Kobe wins another one. In terms of the players viewpoints, they likely all have Kobe above him in their all-time lists.

[HarlemHeat37]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive competition was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

[FkLA]

Some good reading: :toast

Double Standard 1: Everyone harps on Kobe for playing with Shaq, yet no one harps on Duncan for having Manu, Parker, Bowen and other amazing players.
Shaq has played in the NBA 18 seasons, he only has 4 rings, he is not an automatic championship. In fact, he was not even in his physical prime during the threepeat championship run. He was significantly overweight almost every season during that run.

Double Standard 2: Duncan has played on a contending, elite team since he came into the NBA. Kobe has been rebuilding for 3 seasons in the 2000's (2005,2006,2007) and still has more rings in the decade.

Myth 1: Duncan has more impact for his team .

Kobe's Roles for his team:

-Primary Scorer
-Primary Defender
-Primary go to player in 4th
-Primary playmaker

Duncan's Roles for team:

-Not a primary scorer (very well-balanced scoring)
-Bowen is the primary defender (Duncan anchors the paint, but Bowen denies penetration, guards best players on other team)
-Manu and Parker are the go to guys in the 4th (Duncan also has his moments, but he is not self-sufficient)
-Parker is the primary playmaker

Myth 2: Duncan is more dominant than Kobe.

If you are going to call Duncan dominant, I guess we should call Kevin Garnett and Elton Brand dominant as well. Don't confuse dominance with consistency. The truth of the matter is Kobe is far more dominant than Timmy.

80+ point games: Kobe 1, Duncan 0
70+ point games Kobe 1, Duncan 0
60+ point games: Kobe 4, Duncan 0
50+ point games: Kobe 24, Duncan 0
40+ point games: Kobe 100, Duncan 9

January 14, 2002: Kobe score 56 points in 3 quarters. Memphis scores 59 in 3 quarters.

December 20, 2005: Kobe outscores the entire Dallas Mavericks team 62-61 at the end of the third quarter. This is the first and only time a player has outscored a team after 3 quarters.

Kobe Bryant is the only player who has can outscore an entire opposing team, you dont' get any more dominant than that. No one else has come close to matching Kobe in that regard - not Shaq, not Jordan and definately not Duncan.

Myth 3: Tim Duncan is the most fundamentally sound player in the NBA.

Tim Duncan's game has weaknessses - free throw shooting, three point shooting.
Kobe Bryant's game does not have any weaknesses. He is the most complete player in the game.

Kobe Bryant:

5 Championships (2000,2001,2002, 2009, 2010)
7 NBA Finals (2000,2001,2002,2004,2008, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP
2 Scoring Titles (2006, 2007)
1 Gold Medal (2008)
2 All-Star MVP (2001,2007)
1 NBA MVP (2008)
8 NBA All NBA 1st team
8 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
3 30+ ppg seasons
6 2000+ point seasons
1 SDC (1996)

Tim Duncan:

4 Championships (1999,2003,2005,2007)
4 NBA Finals (1999,2003,2005,2007)
3 Finals MVP (1999,2003, 2005)
0 Scoring Titles
0 Gold Medals
1 All-Star MVP (2004)
2 NBA MVP (2003,2004)
9 NBA All NBA 1st team
9 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
0 30 ppg seasons
1 2000+ point seasons

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that got benched in favor of Speedy fucking Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean fucking George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack shit as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple fucking lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim fucking Duncan.

The other arguments are even more fucking retarded...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some shit. Fucking childish.

[Killakobe81]

In what sense? Scoring? Individual talent?

Cause as great as Kobe is 1.thats about all he has on Duncan. Kobe definitely didnt have the impact Duncan had defensively, not even offensively either...Kobe can get his 30 anytime he wants but he didnt have that element Duncan had of drawing double/triple teams and most importantly being a willing passer. We all saw how Kobe fared when he wasnt surrounded with a stacked team. His individual talent is unquestioned, 2.his ability to make teammates better is a different story. Thats what sets Duncan apart from Kobe in my opinion.

i like how you ignored the part where I said Duncan HAD accomplished more and if franchise impact is considred he may get the nod ... LOL

1. - If that is ALL you think kobe has on duncan then there is no point in us going further plus it has been stated by Laker fans on here ad nauseum.
2. - Yes duncan has not had as much help as Kobe but name ONE Spurs squad of the duncan era that was as shitty as the Lakers from 05-07 ... waiting ....

Look thing i hate about this debate is that you have to knock one great player to praise another so i will not do that to duncan (like many on here) I have too much respect for his game to do that.

But duncan has ALWAYS had a future HOF'er at coach and even an old as Avery johnson is light years better than Smush parker and and one kidney Sean elliott is the far better former wildcat than Luke "purple shorts" Walton. just keep that in mind in this debate.

We never saw duncan with a shit team does duncan get credit for that ABSOLUTELY. But don't be a hypocrite. when people point o kobe's rings you say well had had Shaq and Gasol ...but when you point out Kobe missed a playoff or lost in the 1st round you don't point to one of the shittiest lakers supporting since i started watching lakers ball in the 80's

[Killakobe81]

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that got benched in favor of Speedy fucking Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean fucking George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack shit as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple fucking lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim fucking Duncan.

The other arguments are even more fucking retarded...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some shit. Fucking childish.

You post that and call someone else childish? LOL
Defend duncan he is one of the best big men i have ever seen but no need to get hostile ...

[cobbler]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive competition was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

Last time I looked, basketball has many facets. Kobe had a remarkable post season this year. Sure you can point out games or portions of games where he underachieved. Please show me one player who didn't. Why is it ALWAYS about shooting % or efficiency of one stat or another? Watch the friggen games!

You see clearly who the leader is. You haters saving grace is that Kobe shot a piss poor % as he led his team to his 5th title? Its laughable! He simply had a bad game 7 shooting and his & was down. It was suggested that Duncan had similar numbers and your argument again is soley based on offense and shooting %. No talk of the 15 rebounds? No talk of the passes to players who hit clutch shots? Passes all you haters say he would never concede? Ohhh, noooo, all we hear about is the missed shots. None of the other aspects of the game. The leadership? The defense? Desire to win that teammates feed off of? Noooo, but then again, when you have an agenda which everyone here knows you do, it's pretty simple to pick a stat here or there, a quarter here or there to support your obsession. Hey when that doesn't fly, you can always resort to your usual hypocritical moral rants.

[FkLA]

How about titles, head to head matches, gold medals, finals appearances... the list goes on, son.

Are we comparing Kobe and Duncan, or the Lakers and Spurs?

[Koolaid_Man]

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that got benched in favor of Speedy fucking Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean fucking George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack shit as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple fucking lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim fucking Duncan.

The other arguments are even more fucking retarded...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some shit. Fucking childish.


excuse me was you saying something? :lol sounds like you're trying to reverse engineer a math problem. :lmao

[Killakobe81]

Are we comparing Kobe and Duncan, or the Lakers and Spurs?

Both
LOL no offense buy you are being a hypocrite. So you point out duncan's leadership and his ability to make his teammates and team better but yet we are NOT going to discuss the succes of their teams?
how does that make ANY sense?

[ezau]

Nope, a loss in the finals hurts no matter what the score is. I bet Boston felt more pain being up 13 while Kobe had an off night and still loss a game 7. It all depends on how you like losing to be honest. To me, it all hurts.

I'm not sure how Boston would feel more pain knowing that they're still up 9-3 in their head-to-head matchup against the Lakers. Had the Cs didn't choke, it would have been 10-2 by now. :toast

[picc84]

You post that and call someone else childish? LOL
Defend duncan he is one of the best big men i have ever seen but no need to get hostile ...

His name is fk la. :lol

[cobbler]

Comparing the Duncan/Robinson duo to Kobe/Shaq or even Kobe/Gasol is beyond stupid...99' is really the only year where Robinson was still somewhat dominant. In 2000 Duncan was out for the playoffs with his knee injury, and by 2001 D-Rob's back problems had caught up with him making him a shell of his former self. Kobe's robin Gasol, or in Shaq's case batman, were in their prime when they were paired with Kobe. No comparison at all.

So you are saying the soft ass pussy that you all were calling Gasoft in 2008 was better than Robinson in 99? Or are you talking MVPau? :lol Oh wait, that opinion changes relative to the particular Kobe argument. My bad! :toast

[HarlemHeat37]

Can we move this discussion to the Kobe thread, please?..

This is a discussion for players that have achieved this incredible feat, Kobe hasn't done it, let's move on..I'll be happy to discuss the rest in the Kobe thread..

[Killakobe81]

Can we move this discussion to the Kobe thread, please?..

This is a discussion for players that have achieved this incredible feat, Kobe hasn't done it, let's move on..I'll be happy to discuss the rest in the Kobe thread..

no offense but you started this thread, you knew who would bite ..so don't play all high and mighty now. Raise the bar.

[ezau]

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that got benched in favor of Speedy fucking Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean fucking George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack shit as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple fucking lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim fucking Duncan.

The other arguments are even more fucking retarded...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some shit. Fucking childish.

Laker fan probably forgets Timmy's almost quadruple double in the 2003 NBA Finals:toast

[HarlemHeat37]

I didn't mention Kobe's name at all until others discussed him..this thread was made to discuss this feat, nothing else..not every thread has to be about Kobe, there's a thread for Kobe-related topics..

[Koolaid_Man]

Can we move this discussion to the Kobe thread, please?..

This is a discussion for players that have achieved this incredible feat, Kobe hasn't done it, let's move on..I'll be happy to discuss the rest in the Kobe thread..


Give me my basketball I'm going home. :lmao

or

that's my ball dogg don't touch my shit. Get your own ball.

or

I'll be back next week Koolaid and I'm gone have my boys with me

:lmao Harlot Ho you're classic. Keep your ass up man. :toast

[FkLA]

i like how you ignored the part where I said Duncan HAD accomplished more and if franchise impact is considred he may get the nod ... LOL

1. - If that is ALL you think kobe has on duncan then there is no point in us going further plus it has been stated by Laker fans on here ad nauseum.
2. - Yes duncan has not had as much help as Kobe but name ONE Spurs squad of the duncan era that was as shitty as the Lakers from 05-07 ... waiting ....

Look thing i hate about this debate is that you have to knock one great player to praise another so i will not do that to duncan (like many on here) I have too much respect for his game to do that.

But duncan has ALWAYS had a future HOF'er at coach and even an old as Avery johnson is light years better than Smush parker and and one kidney Sean elliott is the far better former wildcat than Luke "purple shorts" Walton. just keep that in mind in this debate.

We never saw duncan with a shit team does duncan get credit for that ABSOLUTELY. But don't be a hypocrite. when people point o kobe's rings you say well had had Shaq and Gasol ...but when you point out Kobe missed a playoff or lost in the 1st round you don't point to one of the shittiest lakers supporting since i started watching lakers ball in the 80's

Who was Bruce Bowen before he came to SA and had one of the best defensive big man behind him? Before he had Duncan to draw double/triple teams and get him those open corner 3s? Stephen Jackson couldnt even stay in the league before 03'. Rasho Nesterovic? Nazr Mohammed? Fabricio Oberto? Malik Rose? Speedy Claxton? Derek Anderson? Mario Elie? They arent horrible but Duncan had nothing special as far as supporting casts go, atleast not until Tony and Manu developed into all-stars. Which wasnt until about 2005.

I also love how Laker fans always bring up guys like Smush and Kwame or Mihm. By the way Mihm put up pretty much the same numbers during those years as Robinson did in his last few yrs in SA. He also had Caron and Odom though, two solid players which are always overlooked in order to mention those other lesser guys. Thats like me ignoring D-Rob and Elliott in 99' and mentioning guys like Jerome Kersey and Samaki Walker or something.


[You post that and call someone else childish? LOL
Defend duncan he is one of the best big men i have ever seen but no need to get hostile ...

No hostility. Just calling out how idiotic his argument is. Dude seems to think scoring somehow equates to being a better overall player.

[cobbler]

Can we move this discussion to the Kobe thread, please?..

This is a discussion for players that have achieved this incredible feat, Kobe hasn't done it, let's move on..I'll be happy to discuss the rest in the Kobe thread..


- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive competition was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

The hypocrisy never ends! I commend you on your dilligence! :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

The hypocrisy never ends! I commend you on your dilligence! :lol


I didn't mention Kobe's name at all until others discussed him..this thread was made to discuss this feat, nothing else..not every thread has to be about Kobe, there's a thread for Kobe-related topics..

:rolleyes

Raise the bar, please..if you want a medal one day, you'll take my advice..move it along..

[Killakobe81]

Who was Bruce Bowen before he came to SA and had one of the best defensive big man behind him? Before he had Duncan to draw double/triple teams and get him those open corner 3s? Stephen Jackson couldnt even stay in the league before 03'. Rasho Nesterovic? Nazr Mohammed? Fabricio Oberto? Malik Rose? Speedy Claxton? Derek Anderson? Mario Elie? They arent horrible but Duncan had nothing special as far as supporting casts go, atleast not until Tony and Manu developed into all-stars. Which wasnt until about 2005.

I also love how Laker fans always bring up guys like Smush and Kwame or Mihm. By the way Mihm put up pretty much the same numbers during those years as Robinson did in his last few yrs in SA. He also had Caron and Odom though, two solid players which are always overlooked in order to mention those other lesser guys. Thats like me ignoring D-Rob and Elliott in 99' and mentioning guys like Jerome Kersey and Samaki Walker or something.



No hostility. Just calling out how idiotic his argument is. Dude seems to think scoring somehow equates to being a better overall player.

Bowen was good defender (though shitty corner 3) guy BEFORE he got to SA ...Duncan didnt make him a good defender...but tim did anchor behind him and gets props for that.

I pointed out smush and Luke to compare 2 starters on Tim's first title teams to the two players AT THE SAME POSITION when Kobe lost in the first round (smush was not on team that missed playoffs, my mistake)

Odom and butler are good players not great i would ttake Manu over Odom and Parker over Caron but i love tough juice but let's be real here ...

[FkLA]

So you are saying the soft ass pussy that you all were calling Gasoft in 2008 was better than Robinson in 99? Or are you talking MVPau? :lol Oh wait, that opinion changes relative to the particular Kobe argument. My bad! :toast

Well lets be honest, I love him, but D-Rob would never have been mistaken for being a pitbull. He wasnt quite Gasoft soft but you get the point. Main point though is Gaysoft is in his prime, Robinson wasnt.Not even close actually other than in 99' and even than this was already's Duncan's team. By 2001 his back problems had made him a shell of his former self. No comparison really, even after taking into account how gay Gaysoft is.

[Killakobe81]

:rolleyes

Raise the bar, please..if you want a medal one day, you'll take my advice..move it along..

Ok me medalboy :lol
just saying i know you are not stupid. Blinded by Kobe hate ...but far from stupid.

[FkLA]

Bowen was godd defender thogh shitty corner 3 guy BEFORE he got to SA ...

I pointed out smuch and Luke to compare 2 starters on Tim's first titke teams to the two players AT THE SAME POSITION when Kobe lost in the first round (smuch was not on team that missed playoffs my mistake)

Odom and butler are good players not great i would ttake Manu over Odom and Parker over Caron but i love tough juice but let's be real here ...

Compare them to 2003 Manu and Parker. Not very far off if at all. Yet the results for both those teams were drastically different.

Again Manu was an inconsistant rookie. Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that if you go back and watch that 03' run can see that he got benched in favor of Speedy Claxton in numerous 4th quarters of crucial games.

[cobbler]

I didn't mention Kobe's name at all until others discussed him..this thread was made to discuss this feat, nothing else..not every thread has to be about Kobe, there's a thread for Kobe-related topics..

Come on Harlem... do you honestly think you are that clever? Are you honestly going to sit there and insult everyones intelligence with your TBH charade? You started this thread with the intention to troll Laker and Kobe fans. It's quite hillarious if you actually think you are not transparent to all. I would imagine you have more Kobe related posts than most the Laker fans combined. How sad...

[cobbler]

:rolleyes

Raise the bar, please..if you want a medal one day, you'll take my advice..move it along..

I have a medal. A real one, thank you! :toast

[Killakobe81]

Compare them to 2003 Manu and Parker. Not very far off if at all.

Again Manu was an inconsistant rookie. Parker was an even more inconsistant sophomore that if you go back and watch that 03' run can see that he got benched in favor of Speedy Claxton in numerous 4th quarters of crucial games.

I understand. but we had Lamar and Caron learning the triangle at that time (along with smuch and Luke as starters) neither one are none for their high basketball IQ's ...

Again i will not sit here and discredit duncan. kobe maybe egotistical but to say his "ball-hogging" is "all he has on duncan" is biased and fololish. At the very least any knowledgable bball fan would admit it's a strong debate ...

[cobbler]

Well lets be honest, I love him, but D-Rob would never have been mistaken for being a pitbull. He wasnt quite Gasoft soft but you get the point. Main point though is Gaysoft is in his prime, Robinson wasnt.Not even close actually other than in 99' and even than this was already's Duncan's team. By 2001 his back problems had made him a shell of his former self. No comparison really, even after taking into account how gay Gaysoft is.

I get your point and I have nothing but respect for DRob. I just find it funny how one year Gasol is a puss and worthless and the next he's the MVP cause that diminishes Kobe accomplishments somehow.

[FkLA]

I understand. but we had Lamar and Caron learning the triangle at that time (along with smuch and Luke as starters) neither one are none for their high basketball IQ's ...

Again i will not sit here and discredit duncan.

Manu was a rookie, who spent about half of that regular season on the sidelines with an ankle injury. Parker was a sophomore, foreign PG. Pretty sure they didnt know the Spurs system like the back of their hands either.

Not trying to discredit Kobe either, Im just trying to understand in what sense he is greater than Duncan? I get that he has more individual talent and that he was a more explosive scorer, but as far having a bigger impact on the game I dont get how a Laker fan can sit there and say Kobe > Duncan.

[FkLA]

I get your point and I have nothing but respect for DRob. I just find it funny how one year Gasol is a puss and worthless and the next he's the MVP cause that diminishes Kobe accomplishments somehow.

Eh its always fun to poke fun at Gasol, he's an easy target. Truth is he isnt as bad as the people that call him a pussy. Or as good as people that call him the Lakers MVP. Top 3 big man and maybe Top 10-20 player in the league seems about right. I understand where youre coming from though, the flip-flopping youre referring to definitely does occur.

[HarlemHeat37]

Come on Harlem... do you honestly think you are that clever? Are you honestly going to sit there and insult everyones intelligence with your TBH charade? You started this thread with the intention to troll Laker and Kobe fans. It's quite hillarious if you actually think you are not transparent to all. I would imagine you have more Kobe related posts than most the Laker fans combined. How sad...

I made this thread with the intention of discussing this feat..apparently you have the ability to read minds, so you have your own theory as to why I made this thread..please take this discussion elsewhere, I'm trying to discuss basketball here..

http://www.mcba.org/Data/Images/Raise%20the%20Bar.jpg

[HarlemHeat37]

I have a medal. A real one, thank you! :toast

If you want a SpursTalk medal****..obviously..

I have an Olympic medal in real life too..I prefer my ST medal..

[Koolaid_Man]

Gotdamn you, Kool. Kori, lock this thread, Kool just nutted in they face.

See what the Spur fans don't realize is I do this shit for them. Duncan's place in history mustn't be denied. :toast

As previously I just think of how great Duncan could have been had Kobe stayed in Charlotte. Kobe rewrote the history books at the expense of Duncan's legacy. Duncan could have been front page news for the ages, but now the nigga will be on the index page. :toast

[Koolaid_Man]

I made this thread with the intention of discussing this feat..apparently you have the ability to read minds, so you have your own theory as to why I made this thread..please take this discussion elsewhere, I'm trying to discuss basketball here..

http://www.mcba.org/Data/Images/Raise%20the%20Bar.jpg


Raise the bar...no doubt. How bout a Popovich commitment to never publicly declare his fear and run or hide from the Lakers. I say that's a pretty swell place to start.

[cobbler]

I made this thread with the intention of discussing this feat..apparently you have the ability to read minds, so you have your own theory as to why I made this thread..please take this discussion elsewhere, I'm trying to discuss basketball here..


Like I said, you are very transparent.

[FkLA]

excuse me was you saying something? :lol sounds like you're trying to reverse engineer a math problem. :lmao

solid rebuttal son

post clips of kobe's amazing and incredible 81 while youre at it to prove how much greater than duncan he is, ill start if off

http://www.yaysports.com/nba/images/kobe%20bryant%2010.jpg



Both
LOL no offense buy you are being a hypocrite. So you point out duncan's leadership and his ability to make his teammates and team better but yet we are NOT going to discuss the succes of their teams?
how does that make ANY sense?

Theres a fine line...team accomplishments can be taken into account. Not without weighting in certain factors though cause all supporting casts arent created equal are they? This is like comparing NC winning 5 finals fours and and comparing it Gonzaga winning 4. What feat is more impressive, all things considered?

A historic program known for winning, that gets all the big name players, that everyone loves? Or a small-time school with a great system making noise? I'll take the latter as more impressive but thats just me.

[cobbler]

If you want a SpursTalk medal****..obviously..

I have an Olympic medal in real life too..I prefer my ST medal..

No desire for a spurstalk medal. Never would have noticed them had you not brought it up numerous times. Enjoy.

So lets see your real life olympic medal. What for? What games?

[FkLA]

http://static.flickr.com/29/97658185_d4606adec5.jpg

[ezau]

Manu was a rookie, who spent about half of that regular season on the sidelines with an ankle injury. Parker was a sophomore, foreign PG. Pretty sure they didnt know the Spurs system like the back of their hands either.

Not trying to discredit Kobe either, Im just trying to understand in what sense he is greater than Duncan? I get that he has more individual talent and that he was a more explosive scorer, but as far having a bigger impact on the game I dont get how a Laker fan can sit there and say Kobe > Duncan.

That's the main thing that I can't accept either. Come on Laker fans, Kobe>Duncan? Give me a fucking break.

[Killakobe81]

No desire for a spurstalk medal. Never would have noticed them had you not brought it up numerous times. Enjoy.

So lets see your real life olympic medal. What for? What games?

All of harlem's medals are "special" ....

just teasing ...

[Killakobe81]

That's the main thing that I can't accept either. Come on Laker fans, Kobe>Duncan? Give me a fucking break.

Let's see ...
Spur fan: I just dont get it it's obvious ...duncan>kobe
Laker fan: Kobe had 81 ... and put his nuts all in Duncan's face on a dunk!!!

BBall fan: It's a great debate ...kobe has more rings, but duncan accomplished more Kobe is the better scorer but duncan maybe a better team-mate .... That is a healthy debate

[FkLA]

Let's see ...
Spur fan: I just dont get it it's obvious ...duncan>kobe
Laker fan: Kobe had 81 ... and put his nuts all in Duncan's face on a dunk!!!

BBall fan: It's a great debate ...kobe has more rings, but duncan accomplished more Kobe is the better scorer but duncan maybe a better team-mate .... That is a healthy debate


Theres a fine line...team accomplishments can be taken into account. Not without weighting in certain factors though cause all supporting casts arent created equal are they? This is like comparing NC winning 5 finals fours and and comparing it Gonzaga winning 4. What feat is more impressive, all things considered?

A historic program known for winning, that gets all the big name players, that everyone loves? Or a small-time school with a great system making noise? I'll take the latter as more impressive but thats just me.Which feat would you consider more impressive? This is regarding the rings argument.

Regarding the individual argument--hes not just a better teammate. He also had a significantly bigger impact defensively. And a bigger impact offensively despite being a less explosive scorer. The Spurs offense depended more on Duncan than the Lakers offense depended on Kobe. I get it Kobe is great, and its not a horrible comparison, but at the end of the day 10 times out 10 Duncan at his peak > Kobe at his peak all bias aside.

[HarlemHeat37]

All of harlem's medals are "special" ....

just teasing ...

Wow, bro..Gobbler has an actual medal in a "special" way..using that as an insult to me is spitting in his face and shitting on everything that man has accomplished in life..that's very insulting to him, very rude IMO..raise it..

[Koolaid_Man]

solid rebuttal son

post clips of kobe's amazing and incredible 81 while youre at it, ill start if off

http://www.yaysports.com/nba/images/kobe%20bryant%2010.jpg




Theres a fine line...team accomplishments can be taken into account. Not without weighting in certain factors though cause all supporting casts arent created equal are they? This is like comparing NC winning 5 finals fours and and comparing it Gonzaga winning 4. What feat is more impressive, all things considered?

A historic program known for winning, that gets all the big name players, that everyone loves? Or a small-time school with a great system making noise? I'll take the latter as more impressive but thats just me.


Ok Let me end the arguement right here and now once for all time...All my Laker brothers with me? Here it goes...

As an individual Kobe has more NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks combined. As a global icon Kobe is more popular than all the NBA Teams from Texas combined.

Tim Duncan has an estimated net worth of $75 million

Kobe Bryant has an estimated net worth of $140 million

Man I'm tired of kicking ass. I'm done. enough is enough Koolaid... :rollin

[Nathan89]

15 rebounds by kobe is way overrated by these lakers fans. Was he doing something extra special that he normally doesn't do? Probably not. I think a ass load of ball bounced his way.

[Nathan89]

Ok Let me end the arguement right here and now once for all time...All my Laker brothers with me? Here it goes...

As an individual Kobe has more NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks combined. As a global icon Kobe is more popular than all the NBA Teams from Texas combined.

Tim Duncan has an estimated net worth of $75 million

Kobe Bryant has an estimated net worth of $140 million

Man I'm tired of kicking ass. I'm done. enough is enough Koolaid... :rollin


You are a idiot. All this means nothing.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

He's my bitch lakaluva. I had to take you out to make room for his beatdowns. Cue in the redundant "But I have an all Spurstalk posting award" at any time now.


Like clockwork:

:rolleyes

Raise the bar, please..if you want a medal one day, you'll take my advice..move it along..


If you want a SpursTalk medal****..obviously..

I have an Olympic medal in real life too..I prefer my ST medal..

Dude, why do I troll you so much you ask...

It's simple. You think because of your God damned medal you are way above every other poster here. That's arrogance and few people respect you, and you brought it on yourself. Now, to top it off, you are trying to tell people what to talk about in this thread. Hell, you tell people what to do all the time. You're just another fan that comes to an NBA message board. Chill out.

Yeah, I baited you. You didn't think you could be beaten in an argument and that's what happened. you gave up when the facts flew. The proof to all is in my signature. If your topic gets hijacked, chill out. You'll give yourself a coronary. Look, it eats you alive Kobe has 5 rings, no matter how he got them. Live with it. Duncan has 4, he happily lives with those.

Oh yeah, I have a gold medal too representing Team USA in competition among North and South America and other Pacific nations across the ocean. I can prove mine for the proper wager.

[cobbler]

Wow, bro..Gobbler has an actual medal in a "special" way..using that as an insult to me is spitting in his face and shitting on everything that man has accomplished in life..that's very insulting to him, very rude IMO..raise it..

Not insulting to me at all. I have nothing to do with the special olympics. Fine organization and humanatarian effort but the "special" olympics and the paralympics are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

Your ignorance followed repeatedly by moronic comments like the above make you look childish TBH...

Every person on this board has done nothing but show me respect for my basketball achievements. You are the only one to try to make light of it... just you!

... but that's the ass you are and we all know! :toast

[FkLA]

Ok Let me end the arguement right here and now once for all time...All my Laker brothers with me? Here it goes...

As an individual Kobe has more NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks combined. As a global icon Kobe is more popular than all the NBA Teams from Texas combined.

Tim Duncan has an estimated net worth of $75 million

Kobe Bryant has an estimated net worth of $140 million

Man I'm tired of kicking ass. I'm done. enough is enough Koolaid... :rollin


http://cdn1.ioffer.com/img/item/109/901/063/zpPt.jpg

Kobe career high: 81
Duncan career high: 53

lol duncan

[cobbler]

15 rebounds by kobe is way overrated by these lakers fans. Was he doing something extra special that he normally doesn't do? Probably not. I think a ass load of ball bounced his way.

Well, if anyone whould know about an ass loaded with balls... I imagine it would be you so touchee! :toast

[HarlemHeat37]

Not insulting to me at all. I have nothing to do with the special olympics. Fine organization and humanatarian effort but the "special" olympics and the paralympics are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

Your ignorance followed repeatedly by moronic comments like the above make you look childish TBH...

Every person on this board has done nothing but show me respect for my basketball achievements. You are the only one to try to make light of it... just you!

... but that's the ass you are and we all know! :toast

I realize there's a difference between being mentally disabled and physically disabled..however, using the word "special" to describe it can be qualified as either IMO, since neither of them is your standard Olympic event..

I've given you credit for your medal before too, so don't play that..the fact that I gave you credit for it, despite the fact that you haven't shown us any proof, speaks volumes on my character..show me some proof Gobbler, at least I can prove to you that I have my ST medal..

[FkLA]

not even a flinch :wow

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c506253ef0120a917ae77970b-800wi

lol :lol

http://www.fredhayes.com/photogallery/Karl%20Malone%20and%20Tim%20Duncan.jpg

[cobbler]

I realize there's a difference between being mentally disabled and physically disabled..however, using the word "special" to describe it can be qualified as either IMO, since neither of them is your standard Olympic event..

I've given you credit for your medal before too, so don't play that..the fact that I gave you credit for it, despite the fact that you haven't shown us any proof, speaks volumes on my character..show me some proof Gobbler, at least I can prove to you that I have my ST medal..

Really Harlem? The very thread you are talking about... i showed everyone here with photos and you know it. I was asked... and I complied. And your so called credit went along the lines... Congrats on your achievement but its not like its real basketball. Sad sad sad

[Koolaid_Man]

You are a idiot. All this means nothing.


I'm legitimately elevating the conversation based off numerical data empirical evidence. This is way bigger than Kobe v. Duncan... it's Kobe v. San Antonio Franchise...it's even Kobe v. The State of Texas...If I'm not mistaken Kobe has been to the Finals 7 times while San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston combined have been 7 times. So the new question is who's the greatest Kobe vs. The Field.

Check out this play-off stat:

Kobe v Rockets 3-1
Kobe v Spurs 4-2
Kobe v Mavs 0-0 ( Mavs Never Made It)

overall Kobe beats Texas 7-3 vs

[Man In Black]

http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/timelines/3245703248d75dd81d367f3fde0efe96.jpg

Hey Kobe...you're looking UP at me.

http://lowposts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/suit_malone.jpg
Hey Karl, nice suit! But Tim Duncan still is the best PF to ever play the game.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Does every truly great player have to have this on their resume?..I'm not talking about both awards throughout a career, I'm talking about winning both awards in the same season..

Duncan in 2003, Shaq in 2000, Jordan multiple times, Hakeem in 1994, Magic in 1987, Bird multiple times, Kareem multiple times, Wilt in 1967, Russell multiple times..

Those are all considered to be top 10 players by facts, accolades and logic..

To me, having this represents pure dominance throughout the entire year of basketball..dominating the league during the regular season, standing out as the best player of that season, and following it up with dominance during the playoffs, where it matters the most..

Can you truly be on this level without having this accomplishment on your resume?..

You say this thread has nothing to do with Kobe, yet the topic has Kobe written all over it since he hasn't accomplished this feat. Russell's stock has risen in recent years. Back then, all time greats (top 10) were looked at more for their scoring. Chamberlain was the consensus GOAT when he left the game, miles ahead of Russell. Then along came:

Kareem: 6 Rings
Magic: 5 Rings
Bird: 3 Rings
Jordan: 6 rings.

Now, this decade we saw Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan reach 4 rings and there was an article last year who would get to 5 first.

All of a sudden as players collect rings, people look back and see Russell with 11. That's when he got noticed. Well, he won those in a league where he just needed to win two playoff series, and he usually had home court advantage and had a stacked team compared to what everyone else fielded.

Since this thread is about being an all time great, look at top scorers like Elvin Hayes with 1 ring, and Karl Malone with none. Yet no one places them on any top 10 list.

Most of you didn't see Russell play. I did. He was great, but not as great as you think. For as much as critics put down Chamberlain for being a big man in a small league, same can be said of Russell. Mikan is an all time great, but I question that. The key was smaller, he was bigger than everyone and he shot about 40%. The game has evolved since then. Perhaps I am wrong about Russell, I don't care. I just know what I know. He is valued more today by people who never saw him play than he was by the people who did see him.

That's not the point. Any top 10 list is subjective. Criteria is never agreed upon. Fairest way to rank players is how the NBA did awhile back. Top 50 players after 50 years. No GOAT. List needs updating.

[Nathan89]

I'm legitimately elevating the conversation based off numerical data empirical evidence. This is way bigger than Kobe v. Duncan... it's Kobe v. San Antonio Franchise...it's even Kobe v. The State of Texas...If I'm not mistaken Kobe has been to the Finals 7 times while San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston combined have been 7 times. So the new question is who's the greatest Kobe vs. The Field.

Check out this play-off stat:

Kobe v Rockets 3-1
Kobe v Spurs 4-2
Kobe v Mavs 0-0 ( Mavs Never Made It)

overall Kobe beats Texas 7-3 vs

This isn't a response to this quote, just a message to you.

You can throw out number if you want the facts are kobe has played on teams with way more talent than Duncan and only has one more ring than him. Kobe/Lakers also has benefited from the officials and Duncan/Spurs haven't.

Kobe vs. Duncan Break down: 10pt scale

Kobe-Off.9.7,Def.8.8,Leadership 8.5
Duncan-Off.9.1,Def.9.6,Leadership 9.9

Only reason Kobe has more rings is teammates and officials. Duncan is a better player at a more important position.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Defense wasn't valued as much back then as it is today. Visiting teams usually elected to play the second half facing their own basket so the coach could conduct the offense when the game was on the line. Jerry Sloan played in that era and stuck with it as a coach. Watch the Jazz on the road, you'll see. So, I can see another reason Russell gets more exposure, now those Celtics teams played defense. I don't place much value on titles over 30-40 years ago, the game has changed so much. Too bad the internet wasn't around back then, it's hard to find all the basketball opinions of those days.

[Man In Black]

For as much as critics put down Chamberlain for being a big man in a small league, same can be said of Russell.
This is bullshit. The NBA had lots of players taller that Bill Russell. At 6'9" he wasn't a giant of a man. But he came to play, he knew his role definitively and played it like every game would be his last. His penchant for good defense, and tenacity for rebounds are what carry over. That's why it took Jerry West so, so, so long to get his 1st title. People think that in a day of nutrition and better training techniques that players today are BETTER than players of yesteryear. I disagree. If you could wreck shop then, if you were inserted in today's game, you could still wreck shop. I've long advocated that Tim Duncan is a throwback player, a guy whose game can be played at any point in basketball history and still be dominant. The same goes for Bean. In fact, In the Finals half-time feature, Bean himself said it, "There ain't nothing that you've seen from me, that I didn't take from someone else.
This jump shot move is pure Elgin Baylor." Or something to that effect.

I saw Russell play on film, I've watched whole games on film. He was every bit beastly as KG was when KG beat LA in 09. But he did that to the tune of 11 titles, while going through the LAL for most of them. This quote pretty much tells you his mindset.

1965: Elgin Baylor's knee freaking exploded in Game 1 of the Western Division Finals against the Baltimore Bullets. This effectively eliminated any chance the Lakers had of beating the Celtics in the Finals. But those plucky can-doers tried anyway. And failed.

The Lakers avoided a sweep by winning Game 4, and the L.A. crowd showed their stay and sophistication by pelting Red Auerbach with cigars. Way to stay classy, Los Angeles. Their team's reward was a 126-96 mercy killing at the Garden in Game 5. Boston beat the Lakers so badly that Bill Russell almost cried. "We were not just beating this team. We were destroying it. It was my worst moment in sports. There was the horror of destruction, not the joy of winning. We knew — and did not know — we sensed, and did not completely comprehend, that we had taken sports out of the realm of the game." Wow. I guess sometimes winning hurts.
So again...I call bullshit.

[ezau]

Let's see ...
Spur fan: I just dont get it it's obvious ...duncan>kobe
Laker fan: Kobe had 81 ... and put his nuts all in Duncan's face on a dunk!!!

BBall fan: It's a great debate ...kobe has more rings, but duncan accomplished more Kobe is the better scorer but duncan maybe a better team-mate .... That is a healthy debate

Duncan has had a bigger impact than Kobe overall. Kobe might be the more talented player, but Duncan is more skilled.

[ezau]

Duncan has had a bigger impact than Kobe overall. Kobe might be the more talented player, but Duncan is more skilled. Duncan anchored the greatest defensive team of this decade and he did it for long periods. Kobe's defensive contributions meanwhile are overblown, although his volume scoring/shitty FG percentage bailed him out always.

[ezau]

I'm legitimately elevating the conversation based off numerical data empirical evidence. This is way bigger than Kobe v. Duncan... it's Kobe v. San Antonio Franchise...it's even Kobe v. The State of Texas...If I'm not mistaken Kobe has been to the Finals 7 times while San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston combined have been 7 times. So the new question is who's the greatest Kobe vs. The Field.

Check out this play-off stat:

Kobe v Rockets 3-1
Kobe v Spurs 4-2
Kobe v Mavs 0-0 ( Mavs Never Made It)

overall Kobe beats Texas 7-3 vs

The first three playoff meetings between the Spurs and the Lakers belong to Shaq, not Kobe

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

This is bullshit. The NBA had lots of players taller that Bill Russell. At 6'9" he wasn't a giant of a man. But he came to play, he knew his role definitively and played it like every game would be his last. His penchant for good defense, and tenacity for rebounds are what carry over. That's why it took Jerry West so, so, so long to get his 1st title. People think that in a day of nutrition and better training techniques that players today are BETTER than players of yesteryear. I disagree. If you could wreck shop then, if you were inserted in today's game, you could still wreck shop. I've long advocated that Tim Duncan is a throwback player, a guy whose game can be played at any point in basketball history and still be dominant. The same goes for Bean. In fact, In the Finals half-time feature, Bean himself said it, "There ain't nothing that you've seen from me, that I didn't take from someone else.
This jump shot move is pure Elgin Baylor." Or something to that effect.

I saw Russell play on film, I've watched whole games on film. He was every bit beastly as KG was when KG beat LA in 09. But he did that to the tune of 11 titles, while going through the LAL for most of them. This quote pretty much tells you his mindset.

So again...I call bullshit.
Well, I call Bullshit on your post. If you're going to discuss this with me, talk about everything I say, not just one sentence. You admit you only saw Russell on film. This means you didn't hear all the talk radio shows of that era that discussed Russell and the other players, or read the newspapers from then, and so on. Players such as Wilt, West, Pettit, Robertson, Baylor, and Cousy were considered best of all time with higher stock than Russell. That was the opinion then. The opinion now is Russell may even be better than Wilt, and it's because everyone who says it follows what people say now, and that's no different than how people agreed with what people said back then. The only difference is back then it was mostly people involved with the game, now it's mostly fans on internet sports forums.


Also, people want to rate players like Kobe because he had help; ie Shaq and Gasol. Russell had more help compared to the rest of the league than Bryant could dream of today. Those Celtics teams of the 60's were stacked. John Havlicek was their 6th man for crying out loud.

Russell should be up there because of his defense, which is finally recognized. Top 10? Not in my book. If he's in yours, more power to you.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

The first three playoff meetings between the Spurs and the Lakers belong to Shaq, not Kobe

Pure stupidity and ignorance. Go look at the box scores, I just did, confirming what I already knew.

1999, 2001, 2002 series, Kobe was the Lakers MVP. Shaq's only dominating performance over Kobe was in game 4, 1999 and by then it was too late.

Shaq would never have won without Kobe. Kobe won the west where the defacto finals were. Shaq cleaned up the finals MVPs where there was no one to guard him.

One of the big reasons Spurs fans hate Kobe is what he did to them in 2001 and 2002.

[ezau]

Pure stupidity and ignorance. Go look at the box scores, I just did, confirming what I already knew.

1999, 2001, 2002 series, Kobe was the Lakers MVP. Shaq's only dominating performance over Kobe was in game 4, 1999 and by then it was too late.

Shaq would never have won without Kobe. Kobe won the west where the defacto finals were. Shaq cleaned up the finals MVPs where there was no one to guard him.

One of the big reasons Spurs fans hate Kobe is what he did to them in 2001 and 2002.

Another Kobe lover? Okay

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Another Kobe lover? Okay

Hardly. I'm an agitator who likes to make morons my bitch. List is full now with two Heat fans who are actually the same guy. I am happy with the list as it is.

See, it's like this, if you want to rank greatness by rings it pretty much has to go like this for a top 10. What's interesting is this is a lot of people's top 10, only the order is different.

11 Russell
6 Kareem
6 Jordan
5 Magic
5 Kobe
4 Duncan
4 Shaq
3 Bird
2 Chamberlain
2 Hakeem

Problem is, every one of those players had stacked teams. Kobe gets discredited because he had help, but as I noted above, this is unfair because he won the west, not Shaq. Actually, truth is they helped and needed each other, those 2000-02 Lakers were stacked. Everyone needs help, it's a team game.

However, a lot of all time greats are not on that list, and many had one or no rings. A top 10 list is never going to be agreed upon by everyone.

Where history puts Kobe depends on how he does his last few seasons. If LeBron James gets his 8 rings with the Heat, history will forget he had help. I'll wager the Kobe critics will vanish after he's done. Actually, no I won't. Some will never stop the hate. Probably the same with LeBron.

Stop hating and respect all great players. You will enjoy the sport more that way.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Here's an interesting argument. I didn't put James Worthy and his 3 rings and finals MVP on the list. He's top 50 material, but not as good arguably as Dominique Wilkins. The Lakers could have drafted Wilkins in 1982. They didn't. If they had, and he still had the statistical career he did does he make the top 10 list if the Lakers still win in 1985, 1987, 1988? Logic says he supplants Hakeem on the list. Oscar Robertson played for a losing team until a mercy trade to the Bucks. Dr. J, West and Baylor all had long careers with plenty of finals appearances, but only 2 rings. Pity poor Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. How about Bob Cousy and his 6 rings with Russell? Sam Jones and his 10 with Russell? Bill Sharman and his 4 with Russell? Tommy Heinsohn and his 8 with Russell? John Havlicek and his 6 rings with Russell and two with Cowens and White? They had stellar careers as well. Look them up and see why Russell has 11 rings.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Oh yeah, Russell's Celtics also had great role players like Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones, look them up as well. Got to give them credit for finding the best talent back then and stacking the deck against the league. The NBA worked differently in those days. you couldn't be a free agent, you were stuck where you played and couldn't put your services up for bid.

Russell may or may not be top 10, but the higher you put him, the more you overrate him.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

One final thought, and I'm gone. Vacation ahead later today.

Kobe has a stacked team, that's why he won, but he won nonetheless.
Duncan has had some stacked teams when he won it.

Take those stacked teams away, and maybe they have 2 titles each and fans of other teams had a reason to be happy these last 10 years.

Russell had stacked teams, far beyond what Tim or Kobe could hope for. Take some of those great players away from Russell and his 13 years in the league and they may play out like this:
Russell 3 titles
Wilt:3 titles
Lakers: 2 Titles
Hawks: 2 titles

With the other 3 up for grabs.

Moral is, no matter how you rank Russell, Tim, or Kobe, they are still the same player with or without their titles. This puts a flaw on rings to determine greatness as well as who your teammates are.

As I said earlier, update the top NBA 50 players at 50 years and don't rank them in order. You'll just waste your time and energy trying to pimp your player and bitch slap the players you hate.

[TheMACHINE]

Kobe does what he is supposed to do with stacked teams...WIN.

Other players also have stacked teams, but instead they LOSE.

[Nathan89]

One of the big reasons Spurs fans hate Kobe is what he did to them in 2001 and 2002.

I don't hate Kobe. I hate how overrated he is by so many people.

[hater]

Kobe was so close to getting MVP, a Finals MVP and a Gold Medal in one season.

"close" doesn't cut it

[JamStone]

Oh yeah, Russell's Celtics also had great role players like Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones, look them up as well. Got to give them credit for finding the best talent back then and stacking the deck against the league. The NBA worked differently in those days. you couldn't be a free agent, you were stuck where you played and couldn't put your services up for bid.

Russell may or may not be top 10, but the higher you put him, the more you overrate him.

I'm also someone who has never watched Bill Russell play and haven't even really watched many clips. But the stuff you brought up (not just in this post but the others) is something I always questioned about him. And I think you bring up pretty interesting points that he's gotten a lot more credit as the years pass by, especially in the modern age of NBA basketball where multiple championship winners are really the dominant and best players in the league.

I do wonder how a big and athletic man in that era of the NBA surrounded by so much talent was only able to shoot 44% from the field. In today's NBA, he'd be ridiculed for his offense. As great as his defense was, he was not even a "good" offensive player, let alone a great one. 44% from the field, 56% from the free throw line when defenses and individual defenders weren't all that great. Makes you wonder. As great as a champion and winner as he was, I believe you when you say he wasn't even in the discussion of the greats of the greats when he retired. Maybe all time great "winners." I think in today's NBA, he'd be more like Ben Wallace than he would be a Duncan or KG.

I personally might still put Russell in the top 10, but it's borderline. He's down the list somewhere in the bottom 5 and possible just out of the top 10.


And I will disagree on one of your other points about him being a giant when he played. Going back to their listed sizes, Wilt was all of 7-foot-1, 275 lbs. and looked it. Bill Russell was 6-foot-9 and 215 lbs. Now, those listed heights and weights are probably early on in their respective careers and Russell may have gotten closer to 225-230 but if you look at pictures back then, Wilt still towered over Russell physically. Wilt was a mammoth giant of a man, especially back then. It's like the size difference between Andrew Bynum and Andrei Kirilenko.

[TD 21]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive competition was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

If he ultimately came through when it mattered most, then he didn't choke; he was simply struggling early on.

But here's the other thing that's conveniently been erased from people's memories as the years go by: Duncan was playing on two sprained ankles in the Finals. His mobility had clearly been compromised to the point where he was severely limited. This while battling one of the greatest defensive front lines in the history of the game.

Yet people were seemingly so eager to see him fail or not play up to his lofty standards for once, that that rarely get's mentioned anymore.

As for this talk about Russell and players from that era in general, I almost feel obligated to put them in their consensus place, but honestly, I have a hard time believing Russell was really a better player than guys like Duncan, O'Neal and Olajuwon. I'm not saying he definitively wasn't, but I'm far from convinced he as. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm underestimating his era, but I think guys like that were just ahead of their time and because of that and people not wanting to disrespect players in any sport who are considered legends, I think people often inflate or overstate how great they were.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I'm also someone who has never watched Bill Russell play and haven't even really watched many clips. But the stuff you brought up (not just in this post but the others) is something I always questioned about him. And I think you bring up pretty interesting points that he's gotten a lot more credit as the years pass by, especially in the modern age of NBA basketball where multiple championship winners are really the dominant and best players in the league.

I do wonder how a big and athletic man in that era of the NBA surrounded by so much talent was only able to shoot 44% from the field. In today's NBA, he'd be ridiculed for his offense. As great as his defense was, he was not even a "good" offensive player, let alone a great one. 44% from the field, 56% from the free throw line when defenses and individual defenders weren't all that great. Makes you wonder. As great as a champion and winner as he was, I believe you when you say he wasn't even in the discussion of the greats of the greats when he retired. Maybe all time great "winners." I think in today's NBA, he'd be more like Ben Wallace than he would be a Duncan or KG.

I personally might still put Russell in the top 10, but it's borderline. He's down the list somewhere in the bottom 5 and possible just out of the top 10.


And I will disagree on one of your other points about him being a giant when he played. Going back to their listed sizes, Wilt was all of 7-foot-1, 275 lbs. and looked it. Bill Russell was 6-foot-9 and 215 lbs. Now, those listed heights and weights are probably early on in their respective careers and Russell may have gotten closer to 225-230 but if you look at pictures back then, Wilt still towered over Russell physically. Wilt was a mammoth giant of a man, especially back then. It's like the size difference between Andrew Bynum and Andrei Kirilenko.

One more look in to see what's new, then I need to get on the road. Thanks for this reply, a great post.

One thing we can all agree on is defense wins championships. The Celtics were the first to figure this and many other thngs out. That's why the Celtics were so darned good until Larry Bird was done. Credit Red Auerbach. Finally, when the Celtics faded in the late 80s, the rest of the league figured out what Red already practiced. By then, the NBA was truly evolved into the giant it is now.

As mentioned, Mikan, like Russell, couldn't shoot well either. He should have shot over 55% for his career, instead it's around 40%.

Looking back at the 1960s, player heights were usually inflated. Wilt was listed at 7'2" as was Kareem. Now Chamberlain is pegged at 7'1". Supposedly Kareem was measured at 7'4" laying down but they didn't want to list him that high. That's just a story I heard, don't quote me. I recall Russell as being listed at 6'10 or 6'11. That sounds a lot taller than 6'9". I met Bill Russell when I was 6'2" and he looked closer to 7 feet than 6'9" to me. Whatever. If he actually is 6'9", bless him. I think it may be mount Everest, but whatever one it is isn't important. The actual height was found to end in 00 digits. So, the mapmakers changed it up a bit else the public think it was just a guess. Maybe Russell is 6"10 and was taken down an inch to make him look better. However, the only real tall guys with talent back then were Nate Thurmond and Walt Bellamy. Reed and Kareem came later. With an entire Celtics team playing defense, it's a lot easier for Russell to play better defense as well. The example I'll use, just to piss off the haters, is Kobe's offense stunk in game 7 of the 2010 finals, but he grabbed 15 rebouns. Why? Because the rest of the Lakers defended well enough to make Boston miss.

Wilt usually had his way with Russell. His teammates got creamed by Russell's teammates.

Ever hear of Hal Greer? He was one of the first playeres to break 20K points and at one time was considered top 10 player of all time material. He made the NBA 50 at 50 list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Greer

They call him third best guard of his era. Remember, this was back in the day where offense was what it was all about. The NBA struggled back then to fill arenas. They used to have a rule called the "Territorial draft pick". Teams could spend their first round pick on a local college player in order to sell tickets. That's why Oscar Robertson got stuck in Cincinatti. They didn't stay there long after he was traded. It was on to KC and Omaha, and now, Sacramento.

Honestly, I have nothing at all against Bill Russell other than where to rank him all time. I believe he is overrated. He's probably my favorite major network announcer in NBA history, the man is funny, and knows his stuff. Too bad most of you didn't see his great work in the 70s and early 80's. For Lakers fans, I know he was on hand for their 1972 and 1980 title clinching games doing the color commentary. Shame on Lakers fans for booing him in LA when he presented Kobe the trophy that bears his name. He was very fair to the Lakers and their talent in those series.

Oh, two more things. Jerry West won the first NBA finals MVP but his team lost to Russell in his last year. West was incredible. When the Lakes finally did win in Lo Angeles, West shot about 30% against the Bucks and the Knicks. He was simply caught up in the drama and succombed to it, just as Kobe did and admitted in his finals MVP speech.

Lastly, the best thing about Russell's Celtics were the last 3 titles, not the first 8. Boston was virtually a 95% favorite to win just about every series through 1965. In 1966, Wilt and Philadelphia got a better record but couldn't beat Boston in the playoffs. They did in 1967, but lost in 1968 after being ahead 3-1 in the conference finals. In 1969, Boston won every series without HCA, a feat the 2010 Celtics tried their best to copy with their last 3 series. Those closing 4 years can be divided between Championship experience and a great roster.

Back in a week, maybe.

[JamStone]

A lot of what you say is interesting stuff...

I think heights of players have been exaggerated either way for a long time. You'd have players stretching 6'3 into 6'5, perhaps arguing "with shoes" and rounding up. And you have some players like KG and Duncan who have rounded down to get under that "7-foot" imaginary line of distinction so as not to be considered "centers" in the game. Seems like the listed heights of players back in the 60s and 70s, at least as they've been listed now years later, were more reflective of their heights "without shoes." Who knows really? I've followed the NBA since the mid 80s, so again I don't know about the accuracies of height and weight back before then. But listed heights have actually intrigued me a lot when it comes to NBA players. I remember in the early to mid 90s when Jordan and the Bulls were meeting in the Knicks in the playoffs, John Starks suddenly went from 6'3 to getting listed 6'5. Again, who knows the rhyme and reason, much less the actual accuracy.

Here are some interesting pictures though:

This is one of the better pictures to show the difference, because a lot of the in game action pictures I saw had one or both of them in bended and contorted body positions. But, this picture shows Wilt even somewhat slouching and still much, much more physically imposing than Russell. Eye level and waist level, Wilt has a good 3-4 inches at least on Russell.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/37/3798/XCJIF00Z.jpg


I know Kareem has that afro but look at the eye-level difference. Damn. Maybe Kareem really was closer to 7'4 than he was 7'2.

http://www.achievement.org/achievers/rus0/large/rus0-007.jpg


Kareem might have an inch or so on Wilt, perhaps even two. Both giant men. I think Russell was still a big man by the standards of that era in NBA history, but his size was not at the same level as Wilt or Kareem.

http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2007/kareem_wilt_0215.jpg

[ezau]

Hardly. I'm an agitator who likes to make morons my bitch. List is full now with two Heat fans who are actually the same guy. I am happy with the list as it is.

See, it's like this, if you want to rank greatness by rings it pretty much has to go like this for a top 10. What's interesting is this is a lot of people's top 10, only the order is different.

11 Russell
6 Kareem
6 Jordan
5 Magic
5 Kobe
4 Duncan
4 Shaq
3 Bird
2 Chamberlain
2 Hakeem

Problem is, every one of those players had stacked teams. Kobe gets discredited because he had help, but as I noted above, this is unfair because he won the west, not Shaq. Actually, truth is they helped and needed each other, those 2000-02 Lakers were stacked. Everyone needs help, it's a team game.

However, a lot of all time greats are not on that list, and many had one or no rings. A top 10 list is never going to be agreed upon by everyone.

Where history puts Kobe depends on how he does his last few seasons. If LeBron James gets his 8 rings with the Heat, history will forget he had help. I'll wager the Kobe critics will vanish after he's done. Actually, no I won't. Some will never stop the hate. Probably the same with LeBron.

Stop hating and respect all great players. You will enjoy the sport more that way.

Kobe is damned talented and he's a winner as much as Duncan, but hey, what would have happened to Kobe if he didn't play alongside Shaq, who was a constant double and triple-team guy during his prime? I believe, no one, in any era can handle Shaq during his prime. I agree that both players needed each other during their run, but Shaq, was clearly the bigger part of the equation than Kobe.

Duncan, in his prime, could carry a team to a championship as evidenced by what he did in 2003. What did he have back in 2003? A very young and erratic Parker, a good but still wet behind the ears Manu, an inconsistent S-Jax, and a good, but already fading D-Rob. If that's your definition of stacked, then ok.

[scanry]

Jordan Bulls would've probably lost to the Rockets had they beaten the Magic in 95, but the press just use his unbeaten Finals record legacy to his advantage. I'll say this again it don't matter if you reach the finals or not make the playoffs. The losers will never be remembered. The west was weak during Magic's title days, and you can say that the west has become weak again (especially after 2007).

[ezau]

What would happen to Kobe if he hadn't had Shaq? The same ting you see happening today.

And I totally disagree that Shaq played the bigger role. Shaq had Penny with a stacked Orlando team and couldn't even win a game in the finals. Go back even further when he had a stacked LSU team with Chris Jackson and Stanley Roberts and others and he still couldn't get it done. If you look at the moment that Shaq arrived in LA, he was suppose to at least lead the Lakers to the finals, but year after year he failed to do so. It wasn't until Kobe became the go to guy on the team that the Lakers were able to get over the hump. The dynasty didn't start until Kobe took over the team.

LOL at Kobe taking over the team before the Lakers started winning. You Laker fans aren't giving enough credit for the man responsible for the last three-peat in the NBA. Just because Shaq faceraped Buss doesn't give you the right to re-write history.

[Nathan89]

What would happen to Kobe if he hadn't had Shaq? The same ting you see happening today.

And I totally disagree that Shaq played the bigger role. Shaq had Penny with a stacked Orlando team and couldn't even win a game in the finals. Go back even further when he had a stacked LSU team with Chris Jackson and Stanley Roberts and others and he still couldn't get it done. If you look at the moment that Shaq arrived in LA, he was suppose to at least lead the Lakers to the finals, but year after year he failed to do so. It wasn't until Kobe became the go to guy on the team that the Lakers were able to get over the hump. The dynasty didn't start until Kobe took over the team.

So Kobe can win if he has best big man in the game or the second best big man in the game. Wow so impressive.

[TheGreatest23]

So Kobe can win if he has best big man in the game or the second best big man in the game. Wow so impressive.

it is impressive...he has a good big man and he knows how to win with them. HOw come Duncan cant win every year? He is one of the best big men this past decade. what happened in 06 or 08?

[scanry]

The sooner people respect Kobe, the sooner the hate goes away... But hey it's hard for some Cavs fans, Heat fans and (heck pretty the whole NBA fanbase) to not hate Kobe.:lol

Kobe was the MVP vs the Spurs in 2001 & 2002 playoffs because the Spurs didn't have anyone to stop Kobe back then (heck they still don't). What the Pistons & the Celtics have done in the past will always be overlooked.

I'll say this again, no one gave the 2004 Pistons a chance, but look what a great defense can do to a HOF player like Kobe.

[Nathan89]

it is impressive...he has a good big man and he knows how to win with them. HOw come Duncan cant win every year? He is one of the best big men this past decade. what happened in 06 or 08?

He not only has the second best big man(best offensively) but great role players as well. It is not just pau and kobe you idiot.

He could if he had the kind of talent kobe has had and the officials help. By the way Kobe doesn't win every year either. You should know this unless you are a two year old.

Best player of the past decade.

[21_Blessings]

"close" doesn't cut it

Story of Tim Duncan's career. Sadly he'll retire while he's irrelevant.

[Nathan89]

Story of Tim Duncan's career. Sadly he'll retire while he's irrelevant.

Another idiotic comment

[Man In Black]

This means you didn't hear all the talk radio shows of that era that discussed Russell and the other players, or read the newspapers from then, and so on. Players such as Wilt, West, Pettit, Robertson, Baylor, and Cousy were considered best of all time with higher stock than Russell. That was the opinion then. The opinion now is Russell may even be better than Wilt, and it's because everyone who says it follows what people say now, and that's no different than how people agreed with what people said back then. The only difference is back then it was mostly people involved with the game, now it's mostly fans on internet sports forums.

I call bullshit on your bullshit. Talk Radio shows of that era? Who are you kidding? I was born in the 60's I got to watch some of the games Russell played in the 70's. And you're going to tell me what? That you lived in Boston.
I know of only 2 stations in the Boston area that carried any kind of radio programming with regards to basketball and I can tell you when they started. So...what show are you talking about that discussed Bill Russell and other players and more importantly, who hosted each show?

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

A lot of what you say is interesting stuff...

I think heights of players have been exaggerated either way for a long time. You'd have players stretching 6'3 into 6'5, perhaps arguing "with shoes" and rounding up. And you have some players like KG and Duncan who have rounded down to get under that "7-foot" imaginary line of distinction so as not to be considered "centers" in the game. Seems like the listed heights of players back in the 60s and 70s, at least as they've been listed now years later, were more reflective of their heights "without shoes." Who knows really? I've followed the NBA since the mid 80s, so again I don't know about the accuracies of height and weight back before then. But listed heights have actually intrigued me a lot when it comes to NBA players. I remember in the early to mid 90s when Jordan and the Bulls were meeting in the Knicks in the playoffs, John Starks suddenly went from 6'3 to getting listed 6'5. Again, who knows the rhyme and reason, much less the actual accuracy.

Here are some interesting pictures though:

This is one of the better pictures to show the difference, because a lot of the in game action pictures I saw had one or both of them in bended and contorted body positions. But, this picture shows Wilt even somewhat slouching and still much, much more physically imposing than Russell. Eye level and waist level, Wilt has a good 3-4 inches at least on Russell.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/37/3798/XCJIF00Z.jpg


I know Kareem has that afro but look at the eye-level difference. Damn. Maybe Kareem really was closer to 7'4 than he was 7'2.

http://www.achievement.org/achievers/rus0/large/rus0-007.jpg


Kareem might have an inch or so on Wilt, perhaps even two. Both giant men. I think Russell was still a big man by the standards of that era in NBA history, but his size was not at the same level as Wilt or Kareem.

http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2007/kareem_wilt_0215.jpg

Thanks for those photos!

I have internet access at my brother's house and this thread has me curious. We talked about player heights a bit last night, so I checked back and glad I did. I don't want to come back next week and find thread dead. If I can add anything to it before then, I'll try to check back.

After all these years, the memories fade but the discrepencies of heights remain. I always thought Bill Russell and Willis Reed were closer to 7 feet, yet they are both listed at 6'9"

Now, with that in mind, look at this photo of legendary Knicks players and see how the player's heights don't seem to make sense from what you see. Matter of fact, they are way off!

Left to Right
Dick McGuire 6'0"
Richie Guerin 6'4"
Willis Reed 6'9"
Walt Frazier 6'4
Bernard King 6'7"
Patrick Ewing 7'0"

Click thumb to enlarge. Copy to desktop, open it, and enlarge manually if you wish to see even clearer.


http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc96/th_04640_alg_knicks_groupshot_122_96lo.jpg (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=04640_alg_knicks_groupshot_122_96lo. jpg)


If you google images for Willis Reed and Bill Russell, you will find a photo of Reed about to block him. They are both listed at 6'9" and it's hard to tell if one is larger than the other. Hard to find old player photos.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Kobe is damned talented and he's a winner as much as Duncan, but hey, what would have happened to Kobe if he didn't play alongside Shaq, who was a constant double and triple-team guy during his prime? I believe, no one, in any era can handle Shaq during his prime. I agree that both players needed each other during their run, but Shaq, was clearly the bigger part of the equation than Kobe.

Duncan, in his prime, could carry a team to a championship as evidenced by what he did in 2003. What did he have back in 2003? A very young and erratic Parker, a good but still wet behind the ears Manu, an inconsistent S-Jax, and a good, but already fading D-Rob. If that's your definition of stacked, then ok.

Hey, you know your Spurs 100 X better than I do. I'll say this though, those names seem stacked. Throw in Bruce Bowen though, you left him out.

Again, you know your team, I don't, but I looked at the box scores of the Spurs western run. (Have a look too, at www.basketball-reference.com) Although I agree Tim is the team leader the box scores say to a neutral observer the bench won every series. Matter of fact, the scoring versatility of that 2003 team was off the charts! Kerr, Claxton, Parker, Ginobili, Rose, Bowen sometimes had a lot of points. The Suns, Lakers, and Mavs benches seemed to be dead for scoring. If you remember the games, you might remember some nice runs by the Spurs when the bench came in. With depth like that team had, at least the bench was stacked!

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I call bullshit on your bullshit. Talk Radio shows of that era? Who are you kidding? I was born in the 60's I got to watch some of the games Russell played in the 70's. And you're going to tell me what? That you lived in Boston.
I know of only 2 stations in the Boston area that carried any kind of radio programming with regards to basketball and I can tell you when they started. So...what show are you talking about that discussed Bill Russell and other players and more importantly, who hosted each show?

And I'll prove bullshit on your bullshit. You seem to think I am from Boston because you insinuate you know about their talk radio shows and hosts from way back then. So are we to venture you are from Boston too and a Celtics fan?

However, any true Celtics fan knows Bill Russell retired in 1969! You were born in the 60's and saw him play in the 70's? You just exposed your lying ass right there. If you were born in 1960 the oldest you could have been was 9 years, and sorry, you won't remember much about how Russell played. Any younger forget it. If you are a Celtics fan from Boston, you are just butthurt I am picking on Russell's legacy.

For the record, I couldn't tell you who I listened to talk about old style basketball or exactly when or who, We're taliking 40+ years ago dude. However, media was liomited, there wasn't an internet back then.

Thanks for being my bitch, you are not worth bantering with.

[picc84]

He not only has the second best big man(best offensively) but great role players as well. It is not just pau and kobe you idiot.

He could if he had the kind of talent kobe has had and the officials help. By the way Kobe doesn't win every year either. You should know this unless you are a two year old.

Best player of the past decade.

Every title team in the history of the league has had great role players. If it was possible to win in todays league without a second star and great role players, Lebron would have done it already. And Duncan wouldn't be getting shitkicked out of the early rounds every year.

The Celtics have 4 ACTUAL allstars on their team. How anyone expects a team to compete for a title this year without transcendent amounts of help is beyond me. This ain't 2003, son. You actually need to have a great team to take home the gold.

[Man In Black]

It was late. You're right, I mistyped the 70's thing but hey, shit happens. I saw whole games on film then, but whatever.
But there were still only 2 radio shows at that time. We lived in the New England Area at that time. Bantering? Wow, you used a 5 cent word. Amazing.
Anyways, you would have known that Johnny Most did a live radio show then.

[TheMACHINE]

He not only has the second best big man(best offensively) but great role players as well. It is not just pau and kobe you idiot.

He could if he had the kind of talent kobe has had and the officials help. By the way Kobe doesn't win every year either. You should know this unless you are a two year old.

Best player of the past decade.

haha...omg...a championship team has good role players! Blasphemy!!

what a fucking noob.

[Cry Havoc]

Hey, you know your Spurs 100 X better than I do. I'll say this though, those names seem stacked. Throw in Bruce Bowen though, you left him out.

Again, you know your team, I don't, but I looked at the box scores of the Spurs western run. (Have a look too, at www.basketball-reference.com) Although I agree Tim is the team leader the box scores say to a neutral observer the bench won every series. Matter of fact, the scoring versatility of that 2003 team was off the charts! Kerr, Claxton, Parker, Ginobili, Rose, Bowen sometimes had a lot of points. The Suns, Lakers, and Mavs benches seemed to be dead for scoring. If you remember the games, you might remember some nice runs by the Spurs when the bench came in. With depth like that team had, at least the bench was stacked!

Your posts in this thread are very on-point, but the Spurs in 2003 were pretty weak overall as a team. Parker was the only other consistent scorer for the Spurs. We had no penetration outside of him.

I think the reason we had so many guys knocking down shots for us is simply because Tim Duncan demanded such a massive amount of attention inside. Perimeter players often got caught unawares because they weren't even watching their man on D, instead waiting for Timmy to make his move inside and then try to play some semblance of help D. He faced double teams nightly, even in the playoffs. Heck, the Pistons (one of the best defensive teams of all time) triple-teamed him in the Finals. He still got the job done. And yes, Kerr saved our bacon in one of the games, but he wouldn't have been open all day from 3 if Duncan wasn't imposing his will inside. The team did have a lot of heart, they were just short on guys that really scared the other team. It was a collection of one-dimensional players and a guy who did everything at the highest level possible that season.

Only in Hakeem's first championship did I see a player do so much with so little. That team worked because Duncan overcame every weakness we had. Robinson was fairly bad in those playoffs -- I remember cringing every time he put up a jumper. Rough for me since D-Rob is my favorite all-time player and I was practically dying every time he rose up outside of 8 feet. Outside of Duncan, that team had no post presence on offense or defense.

[Nathan89]

Every title team in the history of the league has had great role players. If it was possible to win in todays league without a second star and great role players, Lebron would have done it already. And Duncan wouldn't be getting shitkicked out of the early rounds every year.

The Celtics have 4 ACTUAL allstars on their team. How anyone expects a team to compete for a title this year without transcendent amounts of help is beyond me. This ain't 2003, son. You actually need to have a great team to take home the gold.

Why do all you lakers fans hate on Lebron then?

[Nathan89]

haha...omg...a championship team has good role players! Blasphemy!!

what a fucking noob.

Clearly championship teams need nice role players but kobe has had insane talent around him and yet he barely wins. Duncan has won with a lot less talent than kobe. This is why I think duncan is better.

[TheMACHINE]

Clearly championship teams need nice role players but kobe has had insane talent around him and yet he barely wins. Duncan has won with a lot less talent than kobe. This is why I think duncan is better.

ooo Kobe BARELY wins...lets create a new stat called "barely win percentage" hahah

[DPG21920]

You can't really refute the fact Tim has won with much less than Kobe though.

[redzero]

You can't really refute the fact Tim has won with much less than Kobe though.

Stop defending Tim like he's one of your relatives.

Damn.

[DPG21920]

Lame :td.

I wrote one well thought out sentence. You went full on PMS mode and started :cry with multiple posts.

LOL Hornets.

[redzero]

Oh, that's two posts.

You better stop now because this is getting embarrassing.

[DPG21920]

Wrong again Hornet fan. The second post said nothing about Duncan. Almost all of your posts said something to this extent:

:cry :cry CP3 is soooooooooo much better :cry

[DPG21920]

I have never seen someone (excuse the internet lingo) so butt hurt :lmao. It is scary good.

[redzero]

You mad. One post and you are bent out of shape and now you're posting two in a row? Take a chill pill, bro.


And you are a Jazz fan, so stop calling me a Hornets fan as if you are some unbiased observer.

And here was my second post in that topic.

[DPG21920]

lol defending yourself. Just admit you were butt hurt and it will all be ok. You are going full Lefty right now. Hypocrite.

Why don't you post some edgy video in your sig to detract from your lameness right now.

[redzero]

Actually, I am using your stupid logic against you, Mr. Hypocrite. My second post in that topic wasn't even about Chris Paul.

But I see that you are butthurt, so I'll drop it. No need to be such a crybaby.

[DPG21920]

I can't believe you have the nerve to call out Lefty when you do the same thing. You mess up, deny it, then act like it is not what it seems.

Did you or did you not post over and over about CP3 defending him with regards to DWill? K thanks.

Imma call you Mr. Lefty.

[TheMACHINE]

You can't really refute the fact Tim has won with much less than Kobe though.

doesnt matter...when you have teammates you win. Are you telling me that Duncan didnt have teamates in 2004 and 2006, but suddenly had them in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Win when you are suppose to. Simple as that.

[DPG21920]

I agree with that, I was just making the other point. Kobe definitely was in an easier position to win talent wise when he did vs when Duncan had championship talent.

[FkLA]

Hey, you know your Spurs 100 X better than I do. I'll say this though, those names seem stacked. Throw in Bruce Bowen though, you left him out.

Again, you know your team, I don't, but I looked at the box scores of the Spurs western run. (Have a look too, at www.basketball-reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com)) Although I agree Tim is the team leader the box scores say to a neutral observer the bench won every series. Matter of fact, the scoring versatility of that 2003 team was off the charts! Kerr, Claxton, Parker, Ginobili, Rose, Bowen sometimes had a lot of points. The Suns, Lakers, and Mavs benches seemed to be dead for scoring. If you remember the games, you might remember some nice runs by the Spurs when the bench came in. With depth like that team had, at least the bench was stacked!

Youre one of the few Laker fans making solid points. But 2003 was all Tim Duncan...I mean sure some of those players had their moments, along with Stephen Jackson whom you didnt mention. But none of them really performed at a high level consistently. Parker was benched in 4th quarters in favor of Claxton cause he was melting down not once, not twice, but numerous times. Ginobili was a pretty wild and erratic rookie, Jackson could hit 5 threes one game and miss them all the next not to mention his terrible turnovers, Bowen brought the D but was still somewhat of an offensive liability. Kerr played like one game, had a huge impact in it though obviously.

Not trying to discredit these players to boost Duncan, they had their moments and it wasnt the worse supporting cast in the world...but can you honestly say that it even remotely compares to what Kobe has had throughout most of this decade?

[redzero]

You mess up

When did I mess up?


deny it

Deny what?


then act like it is not what it seems.

Where? Here?


Did you or did you not post over and over about CP3 defending him with regards to DWill? K thanks.

In which topic? "Ranking the point guards, 10 through No. 1." I actually talked about Chris Paul being better than Deron Williams once in that topic. After that, I wasn't talking specifically about the comparison.

I talked about Paul and Williams a lot more in the topic from a few days ago that was comparing the two players. But you didn't respond to that one, did you?


Imma call you Mr. Lefty.

And I'll call you Mr. Butthurt Hypocrite.

[FkLA]

doesnt matter...when you have teammates you win. Are you telling me that Duncan didnt have teamates in 2004 and 2006, but suddenly had them in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Win when you are suppose to. Simple as that.

Are you implying that Kobe has won every time he's had 'teammates'? Noone bats 100 son.

[DPG21920]

:lmao Hornets

[redzero]

Now that is a quality lefty post right there.

Are you going to say that I'm obsessed with you now? Are you going to call me a fag?

[DPG21920]

Are you going to call someone a hypocrite and then just repeat things over and over?

lol trolled.

[redzero]

lol team smack

The Hornets didn't make the playoffs! You surely showed me!

:rollin

[BadOdor]

lol shorty

lol redzero

lol spurs/hornets suck

[picc84]

Why do all you lakers fans hate on Lebron then?

Nice job changing the subject.

[redzero]

lol shorty

lol redzero

lol spurs/hornets suck

I'm quite aware that my team sucks, thank you. They were blown out by the Nets last season.

[picc84]

I agree with that, I was just making the other point. Kobe definitely was in an easier position to win talent wise when he did vs when Duncan had championship talent.

The difference in competition present in the 2003 playoffs versus the 2010 playoffs is astronomical.

Relative to the strength of each respective years' NBA, neither were in an easier position to win than the other.

[DPG21920]

What? The Lakers talent this year compared to everyone else was far greater than the 03 Spurs compared to everyone else.

[picc84]

100% bullshit.

How would you even begin to argue that.

[DPG21920]

Easily. This Laker's team is stacked.

[picc84]

Easy. So were at least 3 other teams. Next.

[DPG21920]

How does that change the fact the Lakers were the most stacked team?

[picc84]

All-stars within past 4 years:

Celtics: 5
Magic: 4
Lakers: 2

Next.

[DPG21920]

All Star is a joke. Next.

[Nathan89]

Celtics were not even supposed to make it to the finals. I hope you are not trying to claim that they were more stacked than the lakers. If they were the would have won because they play better together as a team than the Lakers do. The Lakers just have so much talent they win.

[picc84]

Good arguments. About what I expected. Especially liked the part where you proved LA is so much better than the rest of the league as opposed to SA in 2003 by....just saying so.

At least the Celtics were an actual legitimate team. Unlike an 8-seed without its best player and a one-man show run by a guard who can't score.

[picc84]

Celtics were not even supposed to make it to the finals. I hope you are not trying to claim that they were more stacked than the lakers. If they were the would have won because they play better together as a team than the Lakers do. The Lakers just have so much talent they win.

Go to bed, son.

[Nathan89]

Go to bed, son.

Good night.:sleep

[Koolaid_Man]

Easily. This Laker's team is stacked.


Kobe 5 > Spurs Franchise 4 read it an weep...:toast

[DPG21920]

No one is debating that.

[Koolaid_Man]

No one is debating that.


It doesn't matter what you're debating TBH...Kobe's probably worth more to the league than the Spurs as an organization and that's no hyperbole...

[ogait]

Good arguments. About what I expected. Especially liked the part where you proved LA is so much better than the rest of the league as opposed to SA in 2003 by....just saying so.

At least the Celtics were an actual legitimate team. Unlike an 8-seed without its best player and a one-man show run by a guard who can't score.


Ok then. Let's start by which team in 2010 was better than the 2003 Lakers?

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Youre one of the few Laker fans making solid points. But 2003 was all Tim Duncan...I mean sure some of those players had their moments, along with Stephen Jackson whom you didnt mention. But none of them really performed at a high level consistently. Parker was benched in 4th quarters in favor of Claxton cause he was melting down not once, not twice, but numerous times. Ginobili was a pretty wild and erratic rookie, Jackson could hit 5 threes one game and miss them all the next not to mention his terrible turnovers, Bowen brought the D but was still somewhat of an offensive liability. Kerr played like one game, had a huge impact in it though obviously.

Not trying to discredit these players to boost Duncan, they had their moments and it wasnt the worse supporting cast in the world...but can you honestly say that it even remotely compares to what Kobe has had throughout most of this decade?

Last things about 2003: Don't forget coach Popovich and crew. Who knows how many weaknesses they found so the shooters could get those looks. Of course, Duncan played a hand in that execution. Even if you underate your team, it won a NBA championhip. The biggest threat was the Lakers and they were down to a 2 man offensive team, with Derek Fisher being the rarely used third option. Most of the 2000-02 bench guys that actually helped were gone. Horry proved in 2005 he wasn't washed up for the Spurs, he ptobably won that series with his game 5 performance.

Now, perhaps I can clear up the Duncan vs. Kobe debate once and for all. More on "that" later. First, look back at what Jamstone said in response to my critique of Bill Russell being top 10. Substitute Ben Wallace for Russell. You could argue Wallace may have led his team to 11 titles from the defensive end. (Also, how about Kevin Love for George Mikan?) Does Wallace or even Kevin Love have the ability to belong on a top 10 list? How about a top 50 list?

Since I am probably going to be the only person posting in here who saw Russell play, and is familiar with opinion back then, we need more help. So, look at the NBA top 50 at 50 years list:

http://www.nba.com/history/50greatest.html

Most of the people who selected these players saw them play and even played against them. So, let's take their word for it. This list made in 1996 at least gives us the top 50 in alphabetical order.

Now, of all the players I mentioned that played for Boston with Russell, Bill had 4 teammates make that list and he won multiple championships with them. Note, of course, they are all enshrined in the Hall of fame as players:

Bob Cousy
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman

In addition Russell had 4 more Hall of Famers on his teams, that were inducted as players:

http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-index/

Tommy Heinshon
Bailey Howell
KC Jones
Frank Ramsey

Check their stats if you haven't already: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/

Is it really any wonder how Russell won 11 championships in 13 years? THe no free agency thing didn't hurt either.

For me to say who had more or less help between Kobe and Duncan is pointless. Both sides have stated their cases and their isn't much left to say within that debate. I have said I think players should be ranked by position, or just a greatest list, no order.

No matter how much help either Tim or Kobe had or didn't have, as I said before, it's nowhere near the case that can be made for the help Russell had. As mentioned, recent public opinion has brought the stock of Russell up. Perhaps the fact that defense is getting recognition helped. People follow what other people say. I know a person that gambles on sports because his friends tell him who is going to win, or he looks at won loss records and makes his choices. In the 70's he told me he had a bet on the Vikings. I asked him how did he think Fran Tarkenton would do in the game. He didn't even know who that was. How can you make a choice if you don't know what's involved? It must be the 11 Rings thing, and Russell was the team leader. Now you know how stacked his teams really were.

So, if you want to put Russell in the top 10, you can't fight over the help Tim or Kobe had or didn't have. Logically, you must go by rings, with Russell ahead of Kobe, ahead of Tim.

If you want to move Russell out of the top 10, then it's easy to put Duncan ahead of Kobe. Just argue Tim did more with less than the other guys. 4 rings can be greater than 5 rings which can be greater than 11 rings.

It's kind of like a presidential elections. People split their votes fairly evenly and we hope history works out. Naturally, both candidates can make convincing arguements why their man should be commander in chief, just like Tim vs. Kobe.

See, history lessons are your friend! No matter who you prefer, you may now safely rank them either Russell, Kobe, Tim, or Tim, Kobe, Russell and be justified in your choice!

I'm interested to see what responses this brings.