Discuss Kobe's 1 MVP in 14 years

[noob cake]

So I went to visit ESPN board seeing all this tbone bullshit.

Suddenly, I see "Discuss Kobe's 1 MVP in 14 years" as name of a thread. It may very well by the greatest thread title. Why didn't I think of this?

Why does Kobe only have 1 MVP if he is supposedly a top 10 all-time player while playing in one of the weaker eras in NBA history (2000's)?

[milkshakeballa]

So I went to visit ESPN board seeing all this tbone bullshit.

Suddenly, I see "Discuss Kobe's 1 MVP in 14 years" as name of a thread. It may very well by the greatest thread title. Why didn't I think of this?

Why does Kobe only have 1 MVP if he is supposedly a top 10 all-time player while playing in one of the weaker eras in NBA history (2000's)?


http://i.imgur.com/otFMd.gif

[mingus]

Kobe actually has three MVP's: Most Valuable Passenger.

[TinTin]

Regular season doesn`t mean anything. All that matters is the finals mvp bro. He has ... oh wait

[milkshakeballa]

Kobe actually has three MVP's: Most Valuable Passenger.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2z85gmv.gif

[milkshakeballa]

Regular season doesn`t mean anything. All that matters is the finals mvp bro. He has ... oh wait


http://i41.tinypic.com/35cipgi.gif

[ElNono]

Regular season doesn`t mean anything. All that matters is the finals mvp bro. He has ... oh wait

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/Sanford_Son_Laughing.gif

[ezau]

Kobe Bryant=Dick Grayson

[jdiggy0424]

*crickets chirping*

[DeadlyDynasty]

yup, he has one MVP and he was given the award in the wrong year (Paul should've arguably won it in 2008). How he didn't win it in 2006 is an embarrassment to the game though. He was unconscious that year

[Darrin]

Well, lets start with how the MVP is decided. The award is one given by sports writers, not NBA peers. It's not perfect.

Meanwhile, in the same decade, Shaquille O'Neal has exactly one Most Valuable Player trophy. O'Neal and Bryant cancelled out each others votes before 2004-05. Secondly, in the year he had the 6th-best scoring season in NBA history (2005-06), Bryant was robbed by giving it to the more popular Steve Nash. To reference Steven A. Smith, he chose Nash simply because the reigning MVP had a better season than the one before it. Nash got many votes because Amar'e Stoudemire was lost for the season and the Suns won 54 games. It is in this season that I lost all confidence in postseason awards and started cheering against Steve Nash.

Dirk, the next season, led the Dallas Mavericks to their best season ever while Nowitzki was recognized, in part, because the Mavericks had been the best team in the West the year before and Nash had won the award over him. Kobe was still languishing on a bad team. Meanwhile, Lebron James was robbed of the 2007-08 MVP because the voters hadn't rewarded Bryant yet, and James was on a bad team. Sound familiar?

In short, it's a stupid award. It doesn't pick the best player, just the most popular with the most team success. When his team got off the ground and Bryant was given credit for their success, he received the award. Why he didn't win in 2008-09 is beyond me.

[milkshakeballa]

Well, lets start with how the MVP is decided. The award is one given by sports writers, not NBA peers. It's not perfect.

Meanwhile, in the same decade, Shaquille O'Neal has exactly one Most Valuable Player trophy. O'Neal and Bryant cancelled out each others votes before 2004-05. Secondly, in the year he had the 6th-best scoring season in NBA history (2005-06), Bryant was robbed by giving it to the more popular Steve Nash. To reference Steven A. Smith, he chose Nash simply because the reigning MVP had a better season than the one before it. Nash got many votes because Amar'e Stoudemire was lost for the season and the Suns won 54 games. It is in this season that I lost all confidence in postseason awards and started cheering against Steve Nash.

Dirk, the next season, led the Dallas Mavericks to their best season ever while Nowitzki was recognized, in part, because the Mavericks had been the best team in the West the year before and Nash had won the award over him. Kobe was still languishing on a bad team. Meanwhile, Lebron James was robbed of the 2007-08 MVP because the voters hadn't rewarded Bryant yet, and James was on a bad team. Sound familiar?

In short, it's a stupid award. It doesn't pick the best player, just the most popular with the most team success. When his team got off the ground and Bryant was given credit for their success, he received the award. Why he didn't win in 2008-09 is beyond me.


http://i55.tinypic.com/9abvqc.jpg

[Chieflion]

In short, it's a stupid award. It doesn't pick the best player, just the most popular with the most team success. When his team got off the ground and Bryant was given credit for their success, he received the award. Why he didn't win in 2008-09 is beyond me.

Oh, there was this guy called LeBron James and his Cavaliers team winning 66 games in the regular season. His statistical dominance and team record led him to that award and it wasn't a lifetime achievement award unlike the 2008 MVP winner.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Awards in other sports are often controversial.

Nolan Ryan is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time, yet he never won the Cy Young award. He is noted for his numerous no hitters and his constant and record setting strikeouts. His main weakness was he gave up a lot of bases on balls, but then again, look how many NBA MVP's couldn't shoot free throws. One of Nolan's misfortunes was he usually played on bad teams. In 1973 he set the MLB record for strikeouts in a season, and that was the first year the designated hitter was used. So he never got to pitch against pitchers for easy KO's. The AL Cy Young award that year went to Jim Palmer, a deserving player. The logic in giving it to Palmer was not only did he have a great season, he helped his Orioles win their division.

The sillyness of that logic came on the heels of the 1972 NL Cy Young winner, Steve Carlton, who was 27-10 with an ERA of about 1.89. The Phillies finished 59-97, thus were 32-85 in games Carlton had no decision; a pace to finish 44-118.

There are countless similar examples in all sports.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Awards in other sports are often controversial.

Nolan Ryan is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time, yet he never won the Cy Young award. He is noted for his numerous no hitters and his constant and record setting strikeouts. His main weakness was he gave up a lot of bases on balls, but then again, look how many NBA MVP's couldn't shoot free throws. One of Nolan's misfortunes was he usually played on bad teams. In 1973 he set the MLB record for strikeouts in a season, and that was the first year the designated hitter was used. So he never got to pitch against pitchers for easy KO's. The AL Cy Young award that year went to Jim Palmer, a deserving player. The logic in giving it to Palmer was not only did he have a great season, he helped his Orioles win their division.

The sillyness of that logic came on the heels of the 1972 NL Cy Young winner, Steve Carlton, who was 27-10 with an ERA of about 1.89. The Phillies finished 59-97, thus were 32-85 in games Carlton had no decision; a pace to finish 44-118.

There are countless similar examples in all sports.

383:wow

and Ryan deserved a Cy Young for this alone:

http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/files/cache/nolan-ryan-16x20-photo-fight-w-robin-ventura_6f138906b76df40947dd67b741499cdb.jpg

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

383:wow

If memory serves me correctly, I believe he set the record against my Twins! I think I watched it on TV. He did win one world series ring in 1969 with the Amazing Mets. They used him in the bullpen....

A Texas native, he finished his career with the Astros, then the Rangers. Those no-hitters and strikeouts never stopped.... He got his 5,000th career strikeout against Ricky Henderson of the Oakland A's when that team was beasting 20 years ago.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ryanno01.shtml

[DeadlyDynasty]

If memory serves me correctly, I believe he set the record against my Twins! I think I watched it on TV. He did win one world series ring in 1969 with the Amazing Mets. They used him in the bullpen....

A Texas native, he finished his career with the Astros, then the Rangers. Those no-hitters and strikeouts never stopped.... He got his 5,000th career strikeout against Ricky Henderson of the Oakland A's when that team was beasting 20 years ago.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ryanno01.shtml

Tough game tonight...I thought they were finally gonna get over on NYY, but Gardenhire went Grady Little in the 6th (so did Girardi in the bottom of the 6th). That's gonna be tough to bounce back from

[Jelloisjigglin]

Oh no, his legacy is in jeopardy again!

[dunkman]

There are several requisites for MVP, that award is more important than finals MVP, because MVP's are lock for the hall of fame. It's sometimes seen that the finals MVP isn't won by the best player of the team, because an player can be on fire for few games or there could be some favourable match-up, but it's more difficult to dominate the whole season.

- The player must be the best player of his team.
- The player can't miss too many games.
- The team, where the MVP plays, must have the best regular season record.
- If not, then must be near the best and the player must have remarkable statistics.

- Until the 2002-2003 season, Shaq was the leader of the Lakers.
- For the 2003-2004 season, the Lakers had 56-26 record but the T-Wolfs were 58-24. The Pacers had a better record, but Garnett had much better stats than J. O'Neal and Kobe too. Duncan missed more than 10 games that season and the Spurs had 57 wins.
- Previous the Gasol for Kwame "trade", the Lakers had awful records: 34-48 for 2004-2005, 45-37 for 2005-2006, and 42-40 for 2006-2007. Kobe wasn't even the second best in the MVP balloting in those years.
- Kobe won the award in 2007-2008. The Lakers had 57-25 record, it was a better record by a game than the Hornets and Paul didn't have better stats than Kobe. The Celtics and Pistons had better records, but Kobe had much better stats than any player from those teams.
- For the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 seasons, the Cavs had better record than the Lakers and LeBron had better stats than Kobe.

[TDMVPDPOY]

- Until the 2002-2003 season, Shaq was the leader of the Lakers.
- For the 2003-2004 season, the Lakers had 56-26 record but the T-Wolfs were 58-24. The Pacers had a better record, but Garnett had much better stats than J. O'Neal and Kobe too. Duncan missed more than 10 games that season and the Spurs had 57 wins.


had duncen played those other 10 games instead of injury and won those games, i doubt the nba wouldve awarded him a 3rd mvp...since he was posting up nearly the same stats as previous season...i think even shaq missed about 10 games that season also

[TheMACHINE]

How many Coach of the Year awards does Phil Jackson have?

[21_Blessings]

reframing this bitch right quik




Why does Kobe only have 5 NBA titles if he is supposedly a top 10 all-time player while playing in one of the stronger eras in NBA history (2000's)?

That's because Kobe is about to win his 6th NBA title and will go down as a top 5 all-time player.

Hahahahaha @ Hakeem only winning two :lobt: :lobt: during the expansion era

[TheMACHINE]

reframing this bitch right quik



That's because Kobe is about to win his 6th NBA title and will go down as a top 5 all-time player.

Hahahahaha @ Hakeem only winning two :lobt: :lobt: during the expansion era

you mean the two years Jordan left?

[TheHeatIsOn]

Kobe was a sidekick most of his career

[namlook]

How many Coach of the Year awards does Phil Jackson have?

[Baseline]

Gee, let's see... Maybe because Bryant is an overrated gunner who only wins when he has a dominant big man in the paint?

[midnightpulp]

Big man dependent, imo.

[dunkman]

had duncen played those other 10 games instead of injury and won those games, i doubt the nba wouldve awarded him a 3rd mvp...since he was posting up nearly the same stats as previous season...i think even shaq missed about 10 games that season also

IMO in that event Duncan would won it the third time, with Garnett close second. Duncan had very good stats too, so the primary criteria would have been what team had much better record. 5 additional wins should have been enough.

[dunkman]

Big man dependent, imo.

Shaq made everyone better. He was guarded by 2-3 players, he used to pass the ball where players like Kobe, Fisher or Horry were wide open on the perimeter.

Right now it's not just Gasol. There are Odom and Bynum. Typically the Lakers bigs score more efficiently than Kobe, win every rebounding battle for additional possessions and prevent other teams from taking high percentage shots. Plus there is Artest too since last season, a very big SF.

[elemento]

What did you expect ? 10 MPVS? The guy is a sidekick, big man dependent. He should be pretty happy about the one he got. He didn't even deserve that IMO.

[Giuseppe]

I smell skunk.

[FkLA]

To be honest this is really unfair to Kobe Bean. This is like asking to explain Manu's 0 MVPs, or Scottie's, or Mo Williams'. Its really hard to be MVP of the league when youve only been the best player on your own team 3-4 years in your 14 yr career.

[Giuseppe]

But, a 5-time NBA World Champion.

[Purch]

The bigger question is why Shaq only has 1 mvp

[Giuseppe]

....& only 4 NBA World Championships.

[FkLA]

But, a 5-time NBA World Champion.

Most of which, were not done as the MVP of his team. Much less the league.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:c0dPbGHIH7RDVM:http://koteyko.ru/wp-content/gallery/lolcat1248/funny-pictures-cat-giggles-teehee1.jpg&t=1

[Giuseppe]

Still & all Bryant has 5 NBA World Championships, whilst Daddy and your guy Duncan have but 4.

Let us proceed...

[midnightpulp]

Still & all Bryant has 5 NBA World Championships, whilst Daddy and your guy Duncan have but 4.

Let us proceed...

And you still have none.

[Giuseppe]

Oh, contrare', I've got 16 NBA World Championships.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, contrare', I've got 16 NBA World Championships.

Take a picture of your rings and post 'em. And make sure to frame them with a piece of paper that reads Culburn from Spurstalk or something like that.

[Killakobe81]

LOL weak era? With Shaq, duncan, KG, Dirk and now Lebron as 3 of the all-time greats he was competing with MVP's for? This may be the stupidest thread of the many of the summer. Kobe may or may not be an all-time top 10 player ....but if he isnt, it's not due to lack of competition or MVP's. hakeem has only 1 and he is one of the greatest centers in NBA history ditto for shaq. And big men can impact the game in so many more ways that an SG. Plus the MVP means crap ...many think Lebron won't win MVP (look at the GM poll) even though he is the most dominant player.if he never wins another MVP award does that change that fact? Kobe wont win it even though he is the best player from a skill stand-point. Doesnt matter we all really know who the best players are regardless of MVP's ...but nice try.

[Venti Quattro]

In general Kobe had very strong teams, and when he scored 50 on everyone he had a JV team to work with.

[noob cake]

LOL weak era? With Shaq, duncan, KG, Dirk and now Lebron as 3 of the all-time greats he was competing with MVP's for? This may be the stupidest thread of the many of the summer. Kobe may or may not be an all-time top 10 player ....but if he isnt, it's not due to lack of competition or MVP's. hakeem has only 1 and he is one of the greatest centers in NBA history ditto for shaq. And big men can impact the game in so many more ways that an SG. Plus the MVP means crap ...many think Lebron won't win MVP (look at the GM poll) even though he is the most dominant player.if he never wins another MVP award does that change that fact? Kobe wont win it even though he is the best player from a skill stand-point. Doesnt matter we all really know who the best players are regardless of MVP's ...but nice try.

...Shaq and Duncan. Dirk and KG are good but all time greats.

Have you looked at the NBA all time greats that can found in the 90's?

[Ashy Larry]

The bigger question is why Shaq only has 1 mvp


great question

[Sportcamper]

LMAO@ this gif...:lmao

http://i.imgur.com/otFMd.gif

[Killakobe81]

...Shaq and Duncan. Dirk and KG are good but all time greats.

Have you looked at the NBA all time greats that can found in the 90's?

Dirk may be the best international player in NBA history ...

KG was the first great HS to NBA talent of his era. He blazed the path for Kobe, Lebron etc. KG Put up great numbers was great defender and was the MVP (deserving) when he won it. I am not saying that Dirk or KG are the equals of duncan shaq or Kobe, but you asked the question and i answered.

The only other legit claim to MVP Kobe had, was one of Nash's. I agree the award is flawed, and the criteria, inconsistent, but the winners (including Nash) have been worthy candidates even if debatable.

BTW The 90's was great because many of the greats MJ, malone etc STARTED in the mid 80's which was a FAR better decade. Historically Mostr of the 90's greats started in the mid to late 80's ...

[TheGreatest23]

How many Coach of the Year awards does Phil Jackson have?

Why the hell would you use logic in Spurstalk?

[JamStone]

I'll answer this troll thread seriously...

-Kobe earlier in his career had the problem of playing with probably the most dominant player in this era of NBA basketball. It would have been tough enough had Shaq been on a different team to challenge him for MVPs (despite Shaq only getting 1), but because Kobe played on the same team, his ability to shine individually was even tougher playing next to Shaq.

-Additionally early on in his career, going back to the mid 1990s, Kobe was stuck in an era of Jordan (won an MVP in 1998), Shaq as already mentioned, and Duncan. Three guys that should go down as top 10 players of all time in the history of the league. I think it would be similar to what Oscar Robertson had to deal with in the early 1960s when not only did he put up a triple-double season, but his first five seasons were all pretty close to triple-double seasons while averaging right around 30 PPG. Ridiculous. Except that was a time where both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were winning League MVPs. Oscar might be lucky to have won 1. Early in his career, Kobe faced a similar hill to climb.

-The MVP has become a team accomplishment award. I believe Kareem back in the early or mid 1970s was the last MVP from a team that wasn't a top 2 or top 3 team in a conference. The award often goes to the player with the most individual season on one of the top 4-5 teams in the league, what probably are considered teams with legitimate chances to contend for a championship that year. Statistically, Kobe put up the most impressive individual season in 2005-06 with his scoring but the Lakers were the 7th seed in the Western Conference.

-And it's been seen in recent years that the MVP award also seems to be a product of an agenda where you could argue not just one but both of Steve Nash's MVP trophies could be argued were generously awarded to him. And for Shaq to only have 1 MVP while Nash has 2 is pretty hard to understand. That's a different debate that's already been discussed at length.


At the end of the day, Kobe probably only deserved 1 MVP and probably deserved it, and arguably not even the season he won it. But to me, that doesn't mean a player with only 1 MVP isn't a top 10 player. Do Karl Malone's 2 MVPs and Steve Nash's 2 MVPs mean those two are top 10 players in the history of the NBA? Does Moses Malone's 3 MVPs mean he's better than Tim Duncan with 2 MVPs or Shaq with 1 MVP? And Kobe isn't the only great who might be a top 10 or top 15 player with only 1 League MVP. Both Hakeem and as mentioned Shaq only have 1. Both are widely considered top 10 players or on the cusp of being top 10 players.

I realize this thread was just trolling trying to bait butt hurt Laker fans. But I figured I'd answer it seriously anyway.

[Giuseppe]

Please.

Yer just as much a troll as the next asshole, Jammie.

[TheMACHINE]

I'll answer this troll thread seriously...

-Kobe earlier in his career had the problem of playing with probably the most dominant player in this era of NBA basketball. It would have been tough enough had Shaq been on a different team to challenge him for MVPs (despite Shaq only getting 1), but because Kobe played on the same team, his ability to shine individually was even tougher playing next to Shaq.

-Additionally early on in his career, going back to the mid 1990s, Kobe was stuck in an era of Jordan (won an MVP in 1998), Shaq as already mentioned, and Duncan. Three guys that should go down as top 10 players of all time in the history of the league. I think it would be similar to what Oscar Robertson had to deal with in the early 1960s when not only did he put up a triple-double season, but his first five seasons were all pretty close to triple-double seasons while averaging right around 30 PPG. Ridiculous. Except that was a time where both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were winning League MVPs. Oscar might be lucky to have won 1. Early in his career, Kobe faced a similar hill to climb.

-The MVP has become a team accomplishment award. I believe Kareem back in the early or mid 1970s was the last MVP from a team that wasn't a top 2 or top 3 team in a conference. The award often goes to the player with the most individual season on one of the top 4-5 teams in the league, what probably are considered teams with legitimate chances to contend for a championship that year. Statistically, Kobe put up the most impressive individual season in 2005-06 with his scoring but the Lakers were the 7th seed in the Western Conference.

-And it's been seen in recent years that the MVP award also seems to be a product of an agenda where you could argue not just one but both of Steve Nash's MVP trophies could be argued were generously awarded to him. And for Shaq to only have 1 MVP while Nash has 2 is pretty hard to understand. That's a different debate that's already been discussed at length.


At the end of the day, Kobe probably only deserved 1 MVP and probably deserved it, and arguably not even the season he won it. But to me, that doesn't mean a player with only 1 MVP isn't a top 10 player. Do Karl Malone's 2 MVPs and Steve Nash's 2 MVPs mean those two are top 10 players in the history of the NBA? Does Moses Malone's 3 MVPs mean he's better than Tim Duncan with 2 MVPs or Shaq with 1 MVP? And Kobe isn't the only great who might be a top 10 or top 15 player with only 1 League MVP. Both Hakeem and as mentioned Shaq only have 1. Both are widely considered top 10 players or on the cusp of being top 10 players.

I realize this thread was just trolling trying to bait butt hurt Laker fans. But I figured I'd answer it seriously anyway.

The OP thinks your ruining his fun. :p:

[noob cake]

I think I get it; Kobe is just not good enough/consistent enough in the regular season for him to win multiple MVP's....

[Giuseppe]

Though those 7 last second game winners last regular season came in quite handy later on.

[Cry Havoc]

I hate the argument that this is a weak era of basketball. Statistically yes, the center position has eroded, but we have better wings and guards now, more athletic 6'5"-6'8" guys than have ever existed before in the NBA. If that's the basis of someone's argument for Kobe only winning 1, they don't have a leg to stand on. Right now IMO is the strongest the NBA has ever been, as far as talent depth. There are players riding the bench right now that would have been insane in the 80s just based on pure athleticism.

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s. :tu

[JamStone]

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s. :tu

I think you're exaggerating quite a bit. No way does James White average more than 38 PPG. But I do think he would have averaged a quadruple double, include steals along with points, rebounds, and assists.

[Cry Havoc]

I think you're exaggerating quite a bit. No way does James White average more than 38 PPG. But I do think he would have averaged a quadruple double, include steals along with points, rebounds, and assists.

:hat

[lefty]

I hate the argument that this is a weak era of basketball. Statistically yes, the center position has eroded, but we have better wings and guards now, more athletic 6'5"-6'8" guys than have ever existed before in the NBA. If that's the basis of someone's argument for Kobe only winning 1, they don't have a leg to stand on. Right now IMO is the strongest the NBA has ever been, as far as talent depth. There are players riding the bench right now that would have been insane in the 80s just based on pure athleticism.

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s. :tu
You can`t leave out other factors such as :

- different rules: no zone D (zone D = open 3`s = offensive stats boosted), handchecking was allowed.

- different officiating; they used to let them play physical basketball in the 80s and 90s.
And less pussies too; just remember Isiah Thomas playing through an ankle injury vs the Lakers and still able to make tough shots.

- less Sternism.


On top of that, players were more fundamentally sound, and had a higher BB IQ.
Yes, there are a lot of gifted players and athletic freaks nowadays, but it`s not enough to make the NBA better; unathletic, slow Larry Bird would own most of them anytime, anywhere

[TheMACHINE]

You can`t leave out other factors such as :

- different rules: no zone D (zone D = open 3`s = offensive stats boosted), handchecking was allowed.

- different officiating; they used to let them play physical basketball in the 80s and 90s.
And less pussies too; just remember Isiah Thomas playing through an ankle injury vs the Lakers and still able to make tough shots.

- less Sternism.


On top of that, players were more fundamentally sound, and had a higher BB IQ.
Yes, there are a lot of gifted players and athletic freaks nowadays, but it`s not enough to make the NBA better; unathletic, slow Larry Bird would own most of them anytime, anywhere

are you saying that Kobe doesnt have basketball IQ, not fundamentally sound and not physical or tough?

[lefty]

are you saying that Kobe doesnt have basketball IQ, not fundamentally sound and not physical or tough?
Not him in particular; I was talking the league in general

But Kobe is s still a pussy

[TheMACHINE]

Not him in particular; I was talking the league in general

But Kobe is s still a pussy

He's probably one of the few in the NBA that can handle 80's basketball.

[lefty]

He's probably one of the few in the NBA that can handle 80's basketball.
Hell no

If he does a lot of vocal flopping today, he would have cried like a baby in the 80`s
(Wait, he`s already done that in 2003)

[TheMACHINE]

Hell no

If he does a lot of vocal flopping today, he would have cried like a baby in the 80`s
(Wait, he`s already done that in 2003)

vocal flopping doesnt mean he cant dish or take the hits. He plays injured and doesnt call for wheelchairs.

He gets clotheslined by Raja bell and just it brushes off. He retaliates back like when he hit Mike Miller.

Your insane if you dont think Kobe plays physical.

[lefty]

vocal flopping doesnt mean he cant dish or take the hits. He plays injured and doesnt call for wheelchairs.
Just an example:

Jordan had big games against defensive teams such as NY and Detroit; those teams were very physical, and as I said, there was handchecking back then, and the refs let them play; and those teams were coached by defensive masterminds
I really dont see Kobe dominating those aforementioned Knicks and Pistons teams

Prime Jordan would have averaged 45 ppg in today's NBA: more fouls called, more FT's, more wide open 3's, more Sternism.

Heck, at 38 y/o, he had a 53 pt game, and 2 game winners at the buzzer

[Cry Havoc]

You can`t leave out other factors such as :

- different rules: no zone D (zone D = open 3`s = offensive stats boosted), handchecking was allowed.

That's because no team played physical defense until the 90s. Handchecking was fine because it compensated for a complete lack of defensive cohesion in the pre-Bad Boys era of basketball. Why do you think Detroit started to dominate when they played like that? Because even though they weren't tackling players every play, they were the first team to play hard-nosed 5 man attacking defense.


- different officiating; they used to let them play physical basketball in the 80s and 90s.
And less pussies too; just remember Isiah Thomas playing through an ankle injury vs the Lakers and still able to make tough shots.

You're right, Duncan playing through a Finals game on two bad legs and still putting up crazy numbers and Kobe playing an entire game with a busted finger means players are less like "big tough men" nowadays.

Or maybe it's that every injury is publicized to the point of a player who's got a pulled groin and goes out and puts up 8 and 5 instead of 14 and 8 is going to be ridiculed for stepping on the court when he costs his team a game in the waning moments with some missed rebounds or bad possessions.


- less Sternism.

Wasn't the entire 90s part of the David Stern area, when the NBA was supposedly at it's peak along with the mid 80s?


On top of that, players were more fundamentally sound, and had a higher BB IQ.

Yes, there are a lot of gifted players and athletic freaks nowadays, but it`s not enough to make the NBA better; unathletic, slow Larry Bird would own most of them anytime, anywhere

So your argument that a top 10 player all time would still get his today is a reason that the 80s were superior? If I recall, Bird destroyed THEN too, even though apparently everyone had crazy fundamentals and played physical defense.

I've challenged several people on this board to go back and watch the NBA Finals from the 1980s. Take off your rose tinted glasses about players being checked into the second row as an example of "Good defense" and go watch.

It's no wonder that players had good offensive fundamentals back then. 18 foot jumpshots are given with regularity, in the FINALS. Corner shots are essentially gimmes. Bruce Bowen would have averaged 5 threes a game for his career or more just camped out in his spot over there. There are entire possessions where there is not one aggressive defensive maneuver made, or where players just opt not to cover their man when they catch the ball at the free throw line extended.

Yes, there were harder fouls back then, but just because you can knock a guy on his ass when he's going up for a layup doesn't make you a good defensive player. In fact, I see it as hard fouls being given because no team was defensively sound enough on D without heavy body contact when they needed a stop. It was a compensating factor, not a determinant one. The defensive schemes today vastly outstrip anything we have ever seen in the NBA. You leave a player open on more than one possession and you're going to be grabbing some pine and getting yelled at by the coach... and this is in the regular season, to say nothing of the intensity of the Finals.

Fundamentals are infinitely easier to express when you don't have a defender playing 3 inches off your hip, shadowing every step you make.

[hitmanyr2k]

I've never understood why it was so awful that Steve Nash won the MVP in 2006. The guy loses Amare Stoudemire to injury for the year. Loses Joe Johnson to free agency. That's about 45 freakin points out the window right there. Their replacements? A career journeyman in Raja Bell and some no-name guy called Boris Diaw. I was here when the Spurs fans were cackling and saying bye bye to Phoenix that year. I remember everyone saying Nash would be absolutely nothing without Amare Stoudemire to pass to...and even I thought the guy was gonna fall on his face. Phoenix's frontcourt was so bad I can't even remember who they were. Kurt Thomas maybe? Hell I don't know. And with that rag tag bunch and all of the new faces Nash still had that team as the 3rd seed in a tough Western Conference. I thought he more than deserved that MVP and this is coming from a guy that generally can't stand one-way players.

[TheMACHINE]

Just an example:

Jordan had big games against defensive teams such as NY and Detroit; those teams were very physical, and as I said, there was handchecking back then, and the refs let them play; and those teams were coached by defensive masterminds
I really dont see Kobe dominating those aforementioned Knicks and Pistons teams

Prime Jordan would have averaged 45 ppg in today's NBA: more fouls called, more FT's, more wide open 3's, more Sternism.

Heck, at 38 y/o, he had a 53 pt game, and 2 game winners at the buzzer

oh so your saying Kobe has to be Jordan to be able to play in the 80's. But then again, its easy to say "If Kobe played in this team, blah blah" since its an arguement that can never be proven.

[midnightpulp]

oh so your saying Kobe has to be Jordan to be able to play in the 80's. But then again, its easy to say "If Kobe played in this team, blah blah" since its an arguement that can never be proven.

Please love my Kobe :cry

Big man dependent, imo.

[hitmanyr2k]

I hate the argument that this is a weak era of basketball. Statistically yes, the center position has eroded, but we have better wings and guards now, more athletic 6'5"-6'8" guys than have ever existed before in the NBA. If that's the basis of someone's argument for Kobe only winning 1, they don't have a leg to stand on. Right now IMO is the strongest the NBA has ever been, as far as talent depth. There are players riding the bench right now that would have been insane in the 80s just based on pure athleticism.

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s. :tu

Athleticism isn't everything. That's why the "old" unathletic Jazz teams used to walk all over the young, athletic 60 win Laker teams in the late 90's. On paper the Lakers should have crushed those Jazz teams :lol

[TheGreatest23]

Please love my Kobe :cry

Big man dependent, imo.


Magic Johnson...big man dependent, imo.

[lefty]

Wasn't the entire 90s part of the David Stern area, when the NBA was supposedly at it's peak along with the mid 80s?

Well, the rigging wasnt necessary back then; the NBA was successful thanks to Magic, Bird, Jordan,Kareem, Isiah, Wilkins, Benard King, Olajuwon, Barkley, etc,,,

It was the golden era of the NBA


But when MJ retired, people started to lose interest; the league needed a new dynasty, a successor to MJ and a classic, renewed rivalry, and this is when the Sternism started to to take off.
So, let's break it down:

- Forced new Jordan: Kobe
- forced dyansty: Lakers 3 peat (Sacramento series*)
- forced renewed rivalry: Lakers-Celtics 2008 (collusions trades, Garnett and Gasol)


And since Stern cares more about the $$$$ than the game itself (and that comment has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Jewish lawyer)...

[Cry Havoc]

Well, the rigging wasnt necessary back then; the NBA was successful thanks to Magic, Bird, Jordan,Kareem, Isiah, Wilkins, Benard King, Olajuwon, Barkley, etc,,,

It was the golden era of the NBA


But when MJ retired, people started to lose interest; the league needed a new dynasty, a successor to MJ and a classic, renewed rivalry, and this is when the Sternism started to to take off.
So, let's break it down:

- Forced new Jordan: Kobe
- forced dyansty: Lakers 3 peat (Sacramento series*)
- forced renewed rivalry: Lakers-Celtics 2008 (collusions trades, Garnett and Gasol)


And since Stern cares more about the $$$$ than the game itself (and that comment has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Jewish lawyer)...

If you really believe these things, why do you watch the NBA?

[lefty]

If you really believe these things, why do you watch the NBA?
Because I have no choice


But seriously, I don't watch as much NBA as I used to; maybe 5 regular season games a year, plus a few playoff games and the Finals (if the matchups don't seem too lopsided)

[TheMACHINE]

If you really believe these things, why do you watch the NBA?

[TheMACHINE]

Because I have no choice


But seriously, I don't watch as much NBA as I used to; maybe 5 regular season games a year, plus a few playoff games and the Finals (if the matchups don't seem too lopsided)

wow..if you dont watch basketball....then there is no point in me or Cry Havoc even trying to debate on your opinions comparing players today to the 80's.

Its pointless.

[lefty]

wow..if you dont watch basketball....then there is no point in me or Cry Havoc even trying to debate on your opinions comparing players today to the 80's.

Its pointless.

You idiot, I started watching less games in 2009/2010

I dont think the league has changed a lot between 2009 and 2010

[lefty]

Oh, and this must belong to you:

http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.160309062.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

Because I have no choice


But seriously, I don't watch as much NBA as I used to; maybe 5 regular season games a year, plus a few playoff games and the Finals (if the matchups don't seem too lopsided)

Ah, an "NBA is rigged" fan. Rather than debate my points, you just put up a big billboard that says, "I don't know enough to have a discussion with you about this."

Nothing more to say here, then.

[lefty]

Ah, an "NBA is rigged" fan. Rather than debate my points, you just put up a big billboard that says, "I don't know enough to have a discussion with you about this."

Nothing more to say here, then.
Did you read my previous post, or did you ignore it on purpose?
Or are you just stupid?

Anyway, it looks like you are short of arguments, so you your only defense is pretending that you know more than I do.


Pretty lame

[Cry Havoc]

That's because no team played physical defense until the 90s. Handchecking was fine because it compensated for a complete lack of defensive cohesion in the pre-Bad Boys era of basketball. Why do you think Detroit started to dominate when they played like that? Because even though they weren't tackling players every play, they were the first team to play hard-nosed 5 man attacking defense.



You're right, Duncan playing through a Finals game on two bad legs and still putting up crazy numbers and Kobe playing an entire game with a busted finger means players are less like "big tough men" nowadays.

Or maybe it's that every injury is publicized to the point of a player who's got a pulled groin and goes out and puts up 8 and 5 instead of 14 and 8 is going to be ridiculed for stepping on the court when he costs his team a game in the waning moments with some missed rebounds or bad possessions.



Wasn't the entire 90s part of the David Stern area, when the NBA was supposedly at it's peak along with the mid 80s?



So your argument that a top 10 player all time would still get his today is a reason that the 80s were superior? If I recall, Bird destroyed THEN too, even though apparently everyone had crazy fundamentals and played physical defense.

I've challenged several people on this board to go back and watch the NBA Finals from the 1980s. Take off your rose tinted glasses about players being checked into the second row as an example of "Good defense" and go watch.

It's no wonder that players had good offensive fundamentals back then. 18 foot jumpshots are given with regularity, in the FINALS. Corner shots are essentially gimmes. Bruce Bowen would have averaged 5 threes a game for his career or more just camped out in his spot over there. There are entire possessions where there is not one aggressive defensive maneuver made, or where players just opt not to cover their man when they catch the ball at the free throw line extended.

Yes, there were harder fouls back then, but just because you can knock a guy on his ass when he's going up for a layup doesn't make you a good defensive player. In fact, I see it as hard fouls being given because no team was defensively sound enough on D without heavy body contact when they needed a stop. It was a compensating factor, not a determinant one. The defensive schemes today vastly outstrip anything we have ever seen in the NBA. You leave a player open on more than one possession and you're going to be grabbing some pine and getting yelled at by the coach... and this is in the regular season, to say nothing of the intensity of the Finals.

Fundamentals are infinitely easier to express when you don't have a defender playing 3 inches off your hip, shadowing every step you make.


Well, the rigging wasnt necessary back then; the NBA was successful thanks to Magic, Bird, Jordan,Kareem, Isiah, Wilkins, Benard King, Olajuwon, Barkley, etc,,,

It was the golden era of the NBA


But when MJ retired, people started to lose interest; the league needed a new dynasty, a successor to MJ and a classic, renewed rivalry, and this is when the Sternism started to to take off.
So, let's break it down:

- Forced new Jordan: Kobe
- forced dyansty: Lakers 3 peat (Sacramento series*)
- forced renewed rivalry: Lakers-Celtics 2008 (collusions trades, Garnett and Gasol)


And since Stern cares more about the $$$$ than the game itself (and that comment has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Jewish lawyer)...


Did you read my previous post, or did you ignore it on purpose?
Or are you just stupid?

Anyway, it looks like you are short of arguments, so you your only defense is pretending that you know more than I do.


Pretty lame

I've quoted my post, and the next post you made.

Who is not responding to who?

[lefty]

I've quoted my post, and the next post you made.

Who is not responding to who?
I responded to you

[TheMACHINE]

You idiot, I started watching less games in 2009/2010

I dont think the league has changed a lot between 2009 and 2010

hey idiot..look at your post. You made it seem like you've only watched the NBA 5 times a year for the past few years. Next time say "This past season" instead of making it look like youve been doing this for years.

Not my fault youre backpeddling. Stick to one-liners.

[lefty]

hey idiot..look at your post. You made it seem like you've only watched the NBA 5 times a year for the past few years. Next time say "This past season" instead of making it look like youve been doing this for years.

Not my fault youre backpeddling. Stick to one-liners.
Potatoes, potatoes

[TheMACHINE]

Potatoes, potatoes

right on cue :p:

[lefty]

right on cue :p:
:lol

[dunkman]

I hate the argument that this is a weak era of basketball. Statistically yes, the center position has eroded, but we have better wings and guards now, more athletic 6'5"-6'8" guys than have ever existed before in the NBA. If that's the basis of someone's argument for Kobe only winning 1, they don't have a leg to stand on. Right now IMO is the strongest the NBA has ever been, as far as talent depth. There are players riding the bench right now that would have been insane in the 80s just based on pure athleticism.

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s. :tu

I think the opposite. It was much more difficult to get away from the defender using hand checking, help defense was much more effective without the defensive 3 seconds, contesting a shot was allowed and hard fouls were the norm.

Wing players were more skilled and able to score with contact.

[JamStone]

Truth is usually somewhere in between, but I think Cry Havoc makes some great points.

Just because more physical play was allowed in the 1980s and just because really hard fouls were delivered much more frequently, it doesn't mean the defenses were tougher or better. Look at the league averages for scoring and shooting percentages:

1980s: 109 PPG, 48.5 FG%
1990s: 101 PPG, 46.3 FG%
2000s: 97 PPG, 45.0 FG%

Defenses have gotten better, not worse. More intricate schemes. Players train harder to be good defenders on how to use their feet and lateral quickness instead of hand checking. Hand checking helped in the 80s. But it was also a product of players not having great defensive technique.

Truth is somewhere in the middle. But I don't think just because there were harder fouls and more physical contact allowed that the defenses were better in the 1980s.

And Kobe could easily play in the 1980s. His vocal flopping and his whining at officials would be quickly put to an end by veterans on his team. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley being his teammate and how he would handle Kobe in the lockeroom when Kobe's act started to get old. Kobe has the skill and athleticism to play in any era. And he might be a whiny bitch sometimes, but he's a tough player and tough enough to play in the 80s.

[Cry Havoc]

Truth is usually somewhere in between, but I think Cry Havoc makes some great points.

Just because more physical play was allowed in the 1980s and just because really hard fouls were delivered much more frequently, it doesn't mean the defenses were tougher or better. Look at the league averages for scoring and shooting percentages:

1980s: 109 PPG, 48.5 FG%
1990s: 101 PPG, 46.3 FG%
2000s: 97 PPG, 45.0 FG%

I understand it's more qualitative than quantitative, but I'm really an advocate of watching 1980s era NBA Playoff games. Yes, harder fouls were given and allowed, but a hard foul doesn't mean you're playing good defense any more than an 70 yard pass that goes 10 yards out of bounds to the waterboy suddenly means a guy is the next Joe Montana. If you go back and watch the games, you see a very common theme -- one of lazy defense, right up until the fourth quarter. This is one reason the fast breaks of the past eras were so lethal -- because they would take advantage of the fact that players running back on defense didn't know how (or didn't want to) to turn their hips and get their feet set to move better laterally, combined with simplistic defensive schemes that were easy to read, especially for players like Magic and Bird. So a fast break or bringing the ball up quickly while the defense was still scrambling to set up meant guaranteed points.


Defenses have gotten better, not worse. More intricate schemes. Players train harder to be good defenders on how to use their feet and lateral quickness instead of hand checking. Hand checking helped in the 80s. But it was also a product of players not having great defensive technique.

Truth is somewhere in the middle. But I don't think just because there were harder fouls and more physical contact allowed that the defenses were better in the 1980s.

The very reason that hand-checking isn't allowed anymore might be because of teams who play D like the Spurs. Can you imagine what players would shoot today if hand-checking were allowed? Defenses are so good now that you'd see most teams average in the 80s if rough defense weren't whistled with regularity.


And Kobe could easily play in the 1980s. His vocal flopping and his whining at officials would be quickly put to an end by veterans on his team. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley being his teammate and how he would handle Kobe in the lockeroom when Kobe's act started to get old. Kobe has the skill and athleticism to play in any era. And he might be a whiny bitch sometimes, but he's a tough player and tough enough to play in the 80s.

Part of this fact is that the NBA has completely taken the ability of a player to react in a volatile manner away. Swing at another player, and you're done for at least a game. Get into a big brawl, and you can kiss a significant part of your season good-bye. That costs teams more than just pride, it can be a playoff spot. So players have to bitch to officials when they get hit, as they have no other recourse, especially after the incident at the Palace. In the past, differences were settled during play, but the NBA has (perhaps wisely) taken steps to prevent that. So players are now going to exploit the officiating to give their team an edge, the same as it happens in football when a receiver gets clipped and goes down like a ton of bricks, or a punter gets touched and acts like he's been shot.

[HarlemHeat37]

The 80s is by far the most overrated era of basketball..the "physical play" is exaggerated and most people don't seem to understand how defense was actually played at that time..

IMO, comparing any era without considering all the circumstances is ridiculous either way..you have to account for all the factors, and it's much easier to compare players within their era/how a certain player dominated his era, as opposed to comparing players from different eras and putting them in hypothetical situations..

Fans of the 80s love to overrate their era, just like today's fan loves to overrate today's athleticism, while ignoring all the advantages today's player has from an equipment/training standpoint..


I've never understood why it was so awful that Steve Nash won the MVP in 2006. The guy loses Amare Stoudemire to injury for the year. Loses Joe Johnson to free agency. That's about 45 freakin points out the window right there. Their replacements? A career journeyman in Raja Bell and some no-name guy called Boris Diaw. I was here when the Spurs fans were cackling and saying bye bye to Phoenix that year. I remember everyone saying Nash would be absolutely nothing without Amare Stoudemire to pass to...and even I thought the guy was gonna fall on his face. Phoenix's frontcourt was so bad I can't even remember who they were. Kurt Thomas maybe? Hell I don't know. And with that rag tag bunch and all of the new faces Nash still had that team as the 3rd seed in a tough Western Conference. I thought he more than deserved that MVP and this is coming from a guy that generally can't stand one-way players.

I completely agree with this..

I don't know whether Nash deserved it over Kobe, I picked Nash, but I could see it going either way..however, I always laugh when people seem shocked or act like it was a complete travesty that Nash won MVP..

Leading that team to 54 wins, without Amare, while leading the NBA in assists by a massive margin, AND being the most efficient shooter in the NBA with a historic TS% of 63%..

[JamStone]

My criticism is that part of Steve Nash winning in 2006 was the fact that he won it in 2005. If Nash doesn't win the first one, then a voter can't say, "well he won it last year and he played even better without Amare, he must deserve it this year too." That wouldn't even have been a consideration.

I believe Shaq deserved it in 2004-05.

Shaq: 22.9 PPG, 10.4 RPG, 2.7 APG, 2.3 BPG, 2.8 TO, 60.1% FG, 46.1% FT (Heat improve by 17 wins)
Nash: 15.5 PPG, 11.5 APG, 3.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 3.3 TO, 50.2% FG, 43.1% 3PT (Suns improve by 33 wins)

Nash got the edge because the Suns improved as a team so dramatically. But, the Heat in the Eastern Conference weren't as bad the year before. They jumped from 42 wins to 59 wins, whereas the Suns jumped from 29 wins to 62 wins. Suns had the best record in the league, but the Heat had the best record in the Eastern Conference, tied for the second best in the league.

I'd also add that while the Suns were a surprisingly good team without Amare in 2005-06, at least part of it was a facade. The league was still in transition a few years after Shaq left the Lakers. Teams were maneuvering to get better to take over now that the Spurs and Pistons were the main title contenders and seemingly more beatable than the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. The league was weak. The Phoenix Suns record against teams that ended up with winning records in 2005-06 was 17-20. Against Dallas, San Antonio, and Detroit (the 3 60 game winning teams that year), their record was 3-7. Good for Nash and the Suns for still being one of the better teams without Amare. The record is a bit deceiving.

I think Nash's first MVP is more debatable because Shaq had a very strong argument for it based on what each player did individually. For 2005-06, I think it should have been more of a race between Kobe and LeBron rather than Nash getting his second in a row. I do think if the Lakers could have won 50 games that year, Kobe could have won it.

[Killakobe81]

Personally none of this has me "butthurt" ...like Jam said even though it was an obvious and weak troll attempt I only attacked the issue of using the BS MVP award as a criteria for greatness. So many discount rings ...because it's a team award, but the MVP Almost always goes to a top player on a team with a top 2 conference record since 1980 ...isnt that also a TEAM accomplishment?

As for the obviously or why you are posting in a toll thread stuff... who cares? If a troll brings up something I want to post on great. If not, I don't.

[Jt.ONE]

steve nash back2back MVP is worth more of a discussion imo