Tim Duncan and 2nd option stats in the series the Spurs got eliminated in

[midnightpulp]

when they were attempting to repeat:

2000 - DNP

2004:

.472FG, 20.6ppg, 12.3rpg, 3.3apg, 1.6blk

2nd option (Tony Parker):

.380FG, 16.6ppg, 6apg, 1.6stl

2006:

.555FG, 32.8ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.7apg, 2.57blk

2nd option (Manu Ginobili):

.488FG, 21.2ppg, 4.2rpg, 2rpg, 2.28stl

2008:

.425FG, 22.4ppg, 17.4rpg, 4.8apg, 2blk

2nd option (Manu was supposed to be the 2nd option, but since he was terrible in that series, I'll include Tony Parker's stats instead):

.476FG, 21.2ppg, 5.6apg, .80stl

Now for comparison's sake, let's take a look at Kobe Bryant and his "2nd option's" stats in the series where the Lakers repeated or were eliminated as they attempted to repeat.

2001:

.415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

2nd option (Shaquille O'Neal):

.572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

2002:

.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk

2003:

.434FG, 32.3ppg, 5rpg, 3.5apg, .66stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.636FG, 25.1ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.6apg, 2.6blk

2010:

.408FG, 28.5ppg, 8rpg, 3.8apg, 2.14stl

2nd option (Pau Gasol):

.478FG, 18.6ppg, 11.6rpg, 3.7apg, 2.6blk


As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series. Furthermore, when you compare Kobe's stats with Duncan's, they're relatively about equal (I can show with advanced stats that Duncan's stats are superior, but I know how we all hate advanced stats).

Do I think Duncan deserves some of the blame for not being able to repeat? Sure. If he plays up to his standards in '04, the Spurs get past the Lakers and have a shot against the Pistons for the O'Brien. But Tony Parker deserves considerably more criticism for playing outstanding basketball the first two games and then proceeding to disappear the last 4 games because he got mindfucked by Phil Jackson's "pack-the-paint" defensive strategy.

On the other hand, when Kobe had a subpar series, his 2nd option always stepped up and either played near his season averages or raised his game beyond. Duncan never had that luxury.

That said, what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy.

The media would like us to believe that, because they can take a player who has achieved every individual accomplishment possible (Jordan in '90, Lebron today) and wrap an interesting story line around the only thing he's failed to achieve. This leads to all sorts of hand wringing by whichever crew of talking heads are analyzing the situation, "Does he deserve a place among the all-time greats if he's never won a championship?" Dramatic discussion ensues and all the mouthbreathing fans who accept this kind of soundbite analysis as legitimate tune in en masse.

Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact.

[Giuseppe]

7-27

[Leetonidas]

7-27

Is that how many unsuspecting boys you were able to capture out of 27 at the Cluck Box?

tee, hee.

[midnightpulp]

7-27

What the hell does that even mean?

[Leetonidas]

2002:

.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk

lol @ anyone trying to claim Kobe is better than Duncan because of his "5 titles." When the focal point of your team is putting up close to 40ppg 12rpbg 4apg and 3bpg, that is HIS team, his championship. It's insane to think how Duncan would've done over his career had he a player on his team who could average 40 in a series.

[Giuseppe]

What the hell does that even mean?

That means that your Duncan is no different than my Bryant if you piggyback Neal for rapist purposes.

[midnightpulp]

That means that your Duncan is no different than my Bryant if you piggyback Neal for rapist purposes.

Let's stay on topic. I know rape is perpetually on your mind (as it was that day when you were driving out to the Chuckbox), but that has nothing to do with the content of this thread.

[Giuseppe]

lol @ anyone trying to claim Kobe is better than Duncan because of his "5 titles." When the focal point of your team is putting up close to 40ppg 12rpbg 4apg and 3bpg, that is HIS team, his championship. It's insane to think how Duncan would've done over his career had he a player on his team who could average 40 in a series.

What drags Duncan down is his chronic inability across the spectrum to repeat. But, he dwells there in that shithole south of Oklahoma so he's got a soft seat and can relax and take it at his leisure. No repeat/No pressure/No repeat.

Let us proceed...

[midnightpulp]

What drags Duncan down is his chronic inability across the spectrum to repeat. But, he dwells there in that shithole south of Oklahoma so he's got a soft seat and can relax and take it at his leisure. No repeat/No pressure/No repeat.

Let us proceed...

So John Havilcek > than Kobe Bryant?

You say that if Kobe wins 6 this year, we're gonna get down to brass tacks. Why? He'll still be 2 away from Hondo, and 5 away from Russell.

[Giuseppe]

Christ, do you forget a f'in thing I say, Mid? You're like my gd mother-in-law.

[midnightpulp]

Christ, do you forget a f'in thing I say, Mid? You're like my gd mother-in-law.

My memory is a curse. I don't forget much, Cul.

[Jose Canseco]

So does this mean "outplaying the second option on your team" >>> repeating as champion?

I don't get it.

[Giuseppe]

Regardless you guys must be made to pay dearly for Duncan's failure to repeat. It's only right and only proper that you be tortured this way off & on. Christ, just take your medicine and try and do better. When you had us down on the ground rubbing our face in our makings over Kobe's inability to ring/sans Daddy we rolled up our sleeves went to work and rang that bell. Now we're straightened out. Ipso facto, it can happen. But, you asshole, you:::you can't hitch your adorable ass to the Heat wagon and get Duncan off the repeat snide. One or the other, dummy.

Am I gettin' thru to ya, big fella?

[midnightpulp]

So does this mean "outplaying the second option on your team" >>> repeating as champion?

I don't get it.

No, it means how do you logically give credit to an individual player for a repeat when 7 to 10 other players have a significant influence on the outcome.

Say if the media was comparing two players, trying to determine who deserves superior all-time great status. All other things being equal between the two, however, Player A repeated, but his stats were a notch worse than Player B who won two titles 4 years apart. Most likely the media, along with some of the idiot members of this forum, would automatically deem Player A the greater player because he repeated (even if Player A had the comparatively better team).

Do you think Kobe played better than Duncan in his respective repeat campaigns than Duncan did in his?

I'm simply trying to show how using team accomplishments to exalt an individual player is a fallacy.

[midnightpulp]

Regardless you guys must be made to pay dearly for Duncan's failure to repeat. It's only right and only proper that you be tortured this way off & on. Christ, just take your medicine and try and do better. When you had us down on the ground rubbing our face in our makings over Kobe's inability to ring/sans Daddy we rolled up our sleeves went to work and rang that bell. Now we're straightened out. Ipso facto, it can happen. But, you asshole, you:::you can't hitch your adorable ass to the Heat wagon and get Duncan off the repeat snide. One or the other, dummy.

Am I gettin' thru to ya, big fella?

You weren't anywhere to be found during that time. You only came around when you had the advantage of the Larry O backing you up.

Chickenshit, I say.

[Giuseppe]

I was around just outcast, in the winds, nary a place to hang my hat. I couldn't get in anywhere. I was blackballed, it was a gentlemen's agreement type sitch. Then I sat down with Ellis Inc, and came in out of the cold.

[Jose Canseco]

No, it means how do you logically give credit to an individual player for a repeat when 7 to 10 other players have a significant influence on the outcome.

Then don't give any individual player credit for winning championships period. Not even Jordan or Hakeem. It's a team sport and championships are team accomplishments. Even in 2003, Duncan didn't do it alone.

If your point is that Duncan was a more dominant no. 1 guy than Kobe has been, ok. Have that. So what? Do you think Duncan would care if he wasn't significantly more dominant than his "second option" if it means say two more championship rings? Do you think he was really hurt when Tony Parker won the Finals MVP in 2007?

Your act has gotten super stale. Seriously.



Say if the media was comparing two players, trying to determine who deserves superior all-time great status. All other things being equal between the two, however, Player A repeated, but his stats were a notch worse than Player B who won two titles 4 years apart. Most likely the media, along with some of the idiot members of this forum, would automatically deem Player A the greater player because he repeated (even if Player A had the comparatively better team).

History remembers championship winners, not game or series statistics. There are some of us (myself included) who are hoops geeks that look deeper into the statistics of the games and playoff series. It still is just basically pointless rhetoric.



Do you think Kobe played better than Duncan in his respective repeat campaigns than Duncan did in his?

Yes. Because Kobe's teams repeated. Duncan's didn't. Bottomline business.

If we're just going by individual statistics, Tracy McGrady is one of the best playoff performers in the history of the game despite never playing beyond the first round. The point is winning, not "let's see how I can manipulate stats to praise the guy I root for and discredit the guy I dislike."

And it goes beyond what you posted anyway. I'll say this. If Duncan played with Shaq in his prime, Shaq still puts up 35+ PPG, 12 RPG and Duncan puts up around 20 PPG, 12 RPG. Shaq would have still significantly outplayed Duncan like he did Kobe. Shaq was that dominant.



I'm simply trying to show how using team accomplishments to exalt an individual player is a fallacy.

Fine, back to the first point I made. Don't exalt any individual player for championships. None. Not Kobe. Not Duncan. Not Shaq. Not Jordan. Not Hakeem. Not Magic or Bird. None.

[midnightpulp]

If your point is that Duncan was a more dominant no. 1 guy than Kobe has been, ok. Have that. So what? Do you think Duncan would care if he wasn't significantly more dominant than his "second option" if it means say two more championship rings? Do you think he was really hurt when Tony Parker won the Finals MVP in 2007?

Your act has gotten super stale. Seriously.

There's no "act" here. This is a legitimate thread, not a troll job. I in no way, shape, or form discredited Kobe. I simply pointed out that during the majority of his repeat attempts (which mostly wound up successful and are something that people, namely Lakers fans, use as ammunition when comparing the two players) he wasn't the best player on his team. I'm illuminating their failure to realize that (a) Duncan never had a "2nd option" as strong as Shaquille, and (b) that rings, as well as repeats, are a team accomplishment.



History remembers championship winners, not game or series statistics. There are some of us (myself included) who are hoops geeks that look deeper into the statistics of the games and playoff series. It still is just basically pointless rhetoric.


Who cares what "history remembers?" Just because something is accepted as "history," doesn't mean it's the truth. Are you going to let popular media, who manipulates, shapes, and rewrites history so that's it's compatible with whatever political, economic, or philosophical agenda they're selling, influence you to where you don't further investigate the issue at hand? It's not "just basically pointless rhetoric" if the evidence uncovers something meaningful.



Yes. Because Kobe's teams repeated. Duncan's didn't. Bottomline business.

What evidence do you have to support that? The stats don't suggest that. Bottomline, they played about equal, and Kobe had the luxury of playing alongside one the greatest bigmen of all time, while Tim Duncan's second options were less than stellar.


If we're just going by individual statistics, Tracy McGrady is one of the best playoff performers in the history of the game despite never playing beyond the first round. The point is winning, not "let's see how I can manipulate stats to praise the guy I root for and discredit the guy I dislike."


Not a valid comparison. McGrady's sample size is way too small. It's also worth mentioning that McGrady's second option was Gordon Giricek. Maybe if he had a player comparable to Shaquille, things would've turned out differently and those stats wouldn't be "empty."


And it goes beyond what you posted anyway. I'll say this. If Duncan played with Shaq in his prime, Shaq still puts up 35+ PPG, 12 RPG and Duncan puts up around 20 PPG, 12 RPG. Shaq would have still significantly outplayed Duncan like he did Kobe. Shaq was that dominant.


Yeah, and Duncan would be celebrated as a "repeat champion." Even being outplayed by Shaq, the "repeat" would add to his legacy, possibly vaulting him over such greats as Larry Bird, which would be undeserved. But since he "repeated," stats and his role within the team would be overlooked, the only focus being on the fact that he repeated and Larry didn't. This is the main crux of my argument (aside from my "rings are a team accomplishment" argument). How we gloss the details over, ignore the means, and only consider the end result.



Fine, back to the first point I made. Don't exalt any individual player for championships. None. Not Kobe. Not Duncan. Not Shaq. Not Jordan. Not Hakeem. Not Magic or Bird. None.

I agree. When comparing individual players, we should consider what they accomplished on their own and not as part of a team.

[Halberto]

Holy shit, it's crazy to look back at those numbers Shaq put up 10 years ago.

[Jelloisjigglin]

Damn, yet another "I'm threatened by Kobe's legacy" thread. Very original Mid. Kobe has had more help etc etc. :sleep

[midnightpulp]

Damn, yet another "I'm threatened by Kobe's legacy" thread. Very original Mid. Kobe has had more help etc etc. :sleep

Answer this question: Has Tim Duncan ever played with anyone as good as Shaq?

[BUMP]

Player A .415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

Player B .572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

Who's team is it? If you take away the names it's pretty easy.

The other 2 championship years the disparity is even worse. So Kobe has 1 championship as the leaddog while Tim has 4.

Tim>>>>Kobe. Glad that's finally settled

[Jelloisjigglin]

Answer this question: Has Tim Duncan ever played with anyone as good as Shaq?

Nope.

[Giuseppe]

Duncan: 4

Kobe: 5

That's it and that's all.

[midnightpulp]

Duncan: 4

Kobe: 5

That's it and that's all.

Havilcek: 8

Kobe: 5

That's it and that's all.

[midnightpulp]

Player A .415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

Player B .572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

Who's team is it? If you take away the names it's pretty easy.

The other 2 championship years the disparity is even worse. So Kobe has 1 championship as the leaddog while Tim has 4.

Tim>>>>Kobe. Glad that's finally settled

B-B-But, Shaq couldn't hit a freethrow! And Kobe let Shaq shine to keep him happy!

Quote Lakaluva: When we got swept by the Spurs in '99, I turned to my friend and told him Kobe was the best player in the league.

[history2b]

when they were attempting to repeat:

2000 - DNP

2004:

.472FG, 20.6ppg, 12.3rpg, 3.3apg, 1.6blk

2nd option (Tony Parker):

.380FG, 16.6ppg, 6apg, 1.6stl

2006:

.555FG, 32.8ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.7apg, 2.57blk

2nd option (Manu Ginobili):

.488FG, 21.2ppg, 4.2rpg, 2rpg, 2.28stl

2008:

.425FG, 22.4ppg, 17.4rpg, 4.8apg, 2blk

2nd option (Manu was supposed to be the 2nd option, but since he was terrible in that series, I'll include Tony Parker's stats instead):

.476FG, 21.2ppg, 5.6apg, .80stl

Now for comparison's sake, let's take a look at Kobe Bryant and his "2nd option's" stats in the series where the Lakers repeated or were eliminated as they attempted to repeat.

2001:

.415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

2nd option (Shaquille O'Neal):

.572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

2002:

.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk

2003:

.434FG, 32.3ppg, 5rpg, 3.5apg, .66stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.636FG, 25.1ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.6apg, 2.6blk

2010:

.408FG, 28.5ppg, 8rpg, 3.8apg, 2.14stl

2nd option (Pau Gasol):

.478FG, 18.6ppg, 11.6rpg, 3.7apg, 2.6blk


As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series. Furthermore, when you compare Kobe's stats with Duncan's, they're relatively about equal (I can show with advanced stats that Duncan's stats are superior, but I know how we all hate advanced stats).

Do I think Duncan deserves some of the blame for not being able to repeat? Sure. If he plays up to his standards in '04, the Spurs get past the Lakers and have a shot against the Pistons for the O'Brien. But Tony Parker deserves considerably more criticism for playing outstanding basketball the first two games and then proceeding to disappear the last 4 games because he got mindfucked by Phil Jackson's "pack-the-paint" defensive strategy.

On the other hand, when Kobe had a subpar series, his 2nd option always stepped up and either played near his season averages or raised his game beyond. Duncan never had that luxury.

That said, what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy.

The media would like us to believe that, because they can take a player who has achieved every individual accomplishment possible (Jordan in '90, Lebron today) and wrap an interesting story line around the only thing he's failed to achieve. This leads to all sorts of hand wringing by whichever crew of talking heads are analyzing the situation, "Does he deserve a place among the all-time greats if he's never won a championship?" Dramatic discussion ensues and all the mouthbreathing fans who accept this kind of soundbite analysis as legitimate tune in en masse.

Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact.


Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

[John Amaechi]

Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

My parents are gone tonight babe! ;)

[Jose Canseco]

It's interesting that T-Mac's 38 playoff games is too small a sample size but in the original post, you only focus on one playoff series of each of the repeat campaigns of Duncan and Kobe which both are even smaller sample sizes than T-Mac's 38 playoff games.

Something you don't factor in as much when drawing these comparisons is that both Duncan and Shaq are bigs who play mostly inside so of course they are going to be more efficient in FG% and of course they are going to have more impressive rebounding stats. While Kobe and whoever you want to call Duncan's "second option" are perimeter players who won't generally shoot a high percentage, although Parker is an exception before he started shooting more jump shots. Now Kobe still lacks efficient shooting, however 45% FG shooting for a guard is roughly equivalent to 50% shooting for a dominant big. (As a side, that's why Jordan is the greatest all time, because in his earlier championship runs, he was shooting 50% from the field, although when he incorporated more three point shooting in his game, we saw his FG% drop to a more mortal 46% shooting in the playoffs.)

But let's look at it in a different way. Here are the entire playoff stats of both Duncan and Kobe in their campaign playoff runs to repeat.

Duncan
40 games
39.1 MPG
22.5 PPG
12.4 RPG
3.3 APG
2.0 BPG
50.5% FG
66.4% FT

Kobe
70 games
42.6 MPG
29.0 PPG
6.6 RPG
5.3 APG
1.4 SPG
44.9% FG
37.5% 3PT
81.3% FT

Now forget that Kobe's teams in those games were 52-18 while Duncan's teams in those games were 22-18. Don't compare the stats to teammates on their teams, just the two players themselves. Take the individual stats as they are. It's basically a toss-up who was the better individual player.

Kobe put in work in those "repeat campaigns." Your best avenue to discredit him was to take "only" the NBA Finals playoff series and to compare them to Shaq's stats. Shaq was dominant in the NBA Finals and still did very good but less dominant damage against the 2003 Spurs. But you also look at it as Shaq being much better than Kobe (which is arguable when you look at the entire playoffs instead of just the last playoff series played in each of those seasons), but don't realize that Kobe put up dominant numbers regardless of being compared to Shaq. Close to 30 PPG, nearly 7 RPG for a wing player, 5 APG for a non-point guard. And his shooting numbers all around are actually very good for a perimeter player. All the while playing next to as dominant player as Shaq was for three of those four playoff runs.

I do think this thread is part of your Kobe hate act/shtick like many of your other threads and posts. And I do think it's stale. Anything to discredit Kobe and/or troll Laker fans. If that's really not your intent or purpose, fine. It sure comes across as it is.

[midnightpulp]

Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

Sure, bring out Manu's stats in '04, who was the 3rd option that year and compare them to Karl Malone.
Compare Odom with Manu in the '08 series.

And anyway your Kobe fanboy ass slices it, Shaq+3rd option>Manu + Tony.

[Giuseppe]

2b, comin' out of the risin' sun.:lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

Let's stay on topic. I know rape is perpetually on your mind (as it was that day when you were driving out to the Chuckbox), but that has nothing to do with the content of this thread.

but I will tell you what does...:lol you been anal sore ever since Luva posted the thread about Kobe shitting on Duncan's legacy yet again...ya know the post where I exposed Duncan as being a weak first option vs Kobe as a 2nd option. Dude it's over I didn't read your bullshit argument above but I already know whatever it is...it is born out of a massive sore asshole...

you really gotta dig deep to type all that shit for what...for nothing...bottom fucking line is this....Kobe is considered ( by everyone outside of San Antonio) a better player, leader, and champion than Duncan. Duncan's legacy will pale in comparison to Kobe when it's all said and done. No one compares Duncan to the GOAT...they do compare Kobe...Duncan has no upside...Kobe does....San Antonio will be fighting for a 7 seed just so they can avoid LA at #1...don't believe me ask Popovich about that fear of LA...:lmao after all he is on record....

so no matter what bullshit analysis you dream up after masturbating your asshole with tarter sauce...you my ace boob coon are still a fucking loser along with dat pussy ass team you cheer-lead for.

ohh and Luva got a new shiney surprise for you coming....as soon as he logs on....:lmao

Here's a little something for you to marinate on:

ES65YWnAV8Q

[history2b]

Sure, bring out Manu's stats in '04, who was the 3rd option that year and compare them to Karl Malone.
Compare Odom with Manu in the '08 series.

And anyway your Kobe fanboy ass slices it, Shaq+3rd option>Manu + Tony.


Please by all means add those stats into the equation... but also use 2006 stats too. That year will be an interest excuse train.

But then why stop at 3rd options? What about 4th options too?

[Koolaid_Man]

ohh and I forgot to add one thing....The only reason Duncan wasn't accused of rape is because his pussy ass married a white bitch...He decided it was better to pay her whereas Kobe had more foresight and wanted to treat Katie-Girl with respect... ;-)

[Giuseppe]

but I will tell you what does...:lol you been anal sore ever since Luva posted the thread about Kobe shitting on Duncan's legacy yet again.

Kool is correct here, Mid. You have been bushy-tailed & flat-earred ever since.

Kool Aid Man

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE]It's interesting that T-Mac's 38 playoff games is too small a sample size but in the original post, you only focus on one playoff series of each of the repeat campaigns of Duncan and Kobe which both are even smaller sample sizes than T-Mac's 38 playoff games.

You brought up T-mac in a discussion comparing Kobe and Duncan. I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think you're not grasping mine: that team success doesn't tell the whole story of player's impact, greatness, etc. And FWIW, I'll even standby that despite T-mac's small sample size, he was a great playoff performer in those days. Kinda hard to advance when Darrell Armstrong and Gordon Giracek were your second options at one point.


Something you don't factor in as much when drawing these comparisons is that both Duncan and Shaq are bigs who play mostly inside so of course they are going to be more efficient in FG% and of course they are going to have more impressive rebounding stats. While Kobe and whoever you want to call Duncan's "second option" are perimeter players who won't generally shoot a high percentage, although Parker is an exception before he started shooting more jump shots. Now Kobe still lacks efficient shooting, however 45% FG shooting for a guard is roughly equivalent to 50% shooting for a dominant big. (As a side, that's why Jordan is the greatest all time, because in his earlier championship runs, he was shooting 50% from the field, although when he incorporated more three point shooting in his game, we saw his FG% drop to a more mortal 46% shooting in the playoffs.)

That's why I believe bigmen are intrinsically greater than guards, because they can impact the game in more areas.


But let's look at it in a different way. Here are the entire playoff stats of both Duncan and Kobe in their campaign playoff runs to repeat.

Duncan
40 games
39.1 MPG
22.5 PPG
12.4 RPG
3.3 APG
2.0 BPG
50.5% FG
66.4% FT

Kobe
70 games
42.6 MPG
29.0 PPG
6.6 RPG
5.3 APG
1.4 SPG
44.9% FG
37.5% 3PT
81.3% FT

Now forget that Kobe's teams in those games were 52-18 while Duncan's teams in those games were 22-18. Don't compare the stats to teammates on their teams, just the two players themselves. Take the individual stats as they are. It's basically a toss-up who was the better individual player.

Thank you. You finally understand. Their stats and relative performances were about equal, which I agree with, but since "Kobe repeated" his stats are more glorified, his legacy bolstered. So if their stats were about equal, why did Kobe's team repeat and Duncan's didn't?


Kobe put in work in those "repeat campaigns."


Never said he didn't.

[midnightpulp]

Please by all means add those stats into the equation... but also use 2006 stats too. That year will be an interest excuse train.

But then why stop at 3rd options? What about 4th options too?

Simple question: Would you trade 3 peat Shaq and Rick Fox for 04, 06, 08 Manu, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen?

[history2b]

Simple question: Would you trade 3 peat Shaq and Rick Fox for 04, 06, 08 Manu, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen?


Another fallacy. Kobe is a perimeter player not a post player so why would I trade Kobe's post player, which everyone with a bball IQ above 43 knows is the formula for winning basketball games, for a bunch of perimeter players?

Are you some kind of moron?

[Jose Canseco]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's. Kobe was every bit as important to those early 2000 Laker teams and your post whether intended or not comes across as discrediting Kobe.

The initial point suffers from your insistence to make irrelevant comparisons. So what if Duncan's second options weren't as great as Kobe's second options? That makes as much difference as teams repeating as champs or not. It's neither Kobe's nor Duncan's credit or fault who there teammates were.

You don't even realize that your efforts to discredit a subjective opinion about the greatness of a player based on being able to repeat isn't refuted by the evidence you provided. It's an "intrinsic" and intangible accomplishment for a great player to be able to help lead a team to repeat as champions. It's something that should be admired and praised. It won't necessarily mean one player who repeats is greater than another that doesn't. Isiah Thomas wasn't a better player than Larry Bird. But it's still an impressive feat nonetheless and I don't see a problem with it being mentioned as a distinction among great players who are relatively equal.

I think you get mad over stupid Laker fans way too much.

[midnightpulp]

Another fallacy. Kobe is a perimeter player not a post player so why would I trade Kobe's post player, which everyone with a bball IQ above 43 knows is the formula for winning basketball games, for a bunch of perimeter players?

Are you some kind of moron?

Let me spell out it out in simple terms so you're tiny brain can comprehend my point:

3 peat Shaq + Derek Fisher (the 3rd best offensive player on the Lakers) > than 04, 06, 08 Manu and Tony.

Yes or no?

[Jose Canseco]

You can't compare a dominant center to a very good PG or SG.

Why would you trade Shaq for Manu when Kobe already covers the SG position?

The hypothetical just doesn't make sense.

[midnightpulp]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's.

Yes there was. It was to show that in those particular series that essentially determined if either respective team was going to repeat, that Kobe's second option provided significantly more help than Tim's. '04 especially, where Tony Parker shot a putrid .380. If Duncan had an offensive second option like Tracy McGrady, he repeats without question.

[history2b]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's. Kobe was every bit as important to those early 2000 Laker teams and your post whether intended or not comes across as discrediting Kobe.

The initial point suffers from your insistence to make irrelevant comparisons. So what if Duncan's second options weren't as great as Kobe's second options? That doesn't as much difference as teams repeating as champs or not. It's neither Kobe's nor Duncan's credit or fault who there teammates were.

You don't even realize that your efforts to discredit a subjective opinion about the greatness of a player based on being able to repeat isn't refuted by the evidence you provided. It's an "intrinsic" and intangible accomplishment for a great player to be able to help lead a team to repeat as champions. It's something that should be admired and praised. It won't necessarily mean one player who repeats is greater than another that doesn't. Isiah Thomas wasn't a better player than Larry Bird. But it's still an impressive feat nonetheless and I don't see a problem with it being mentioned as a distinction among great players who are relatively equal.

I think you get mad over stupid Laker fans way too much.


At least construct a coherent logical argument that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the game of basketball first.

Tim Duncan never repeated, ever. This is a fact. One that doesn't sit well with our resident fan boy. In order to appease his own frustrations on the matter he brings forth an incredibly weak argument to prove Kobe had more help than Duncan did despite Kobe winning back to back with 2 entirely different teams over the course of 2 mini-eras of the NBA.

Kobe Bryant has repeated as a champion 3 times and is currently working on a 4th.

Tim Duncan never repeated in his life and never will again.

The scar is deep.

[midnightpulp]

At least construct a coherent logical argument that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the game of basketball first.

Tim Duncan never repeated, ever. This is a fact. One that doesn't sit well with our resident fan boy. In order to appease his own frustrations on the matter he brings forth an incredibly weak argument to prove Kobe had more help than Duncan did despite Kobe winning back to back with 2 entirely different teams over the course of 2 mini-eras of the NBA.

Kobe Bryant has repeated as a champion 3 times and is currently working on a 4th.

Tim Duncan never repeated in his life and never will again.

The scar is deep.

Yes or no. Were Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat collectively better than Duncan's in 04, 06, 08?

And I don't really need to prove anything. Since he entered the league, no other superstar has played with better players than Kobe Bryant.

[history2b]

Let me spell out it out in simple terms so you're tiny brain can comprehend my point:

3 peat Shaq + Derek Fisher (the 3rd best offensive player on the Lakers) > than 04, 06, 08 Manu and Tony.

Yes or no?

Why was it a 3 on 3 tournament? Why are you stopping at 2 or 3 unless you are a moron who thinks basketball is a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 game.

Do you still think it makes sense to trade a teams sole post player for a bunch of perimeter players in order to make a weak point?

[midnightpulp]

Why was it a 3 on 3 tournament? Why are you stopping at 2 or 3 unless you are a moron who thinks basketball is a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 game.

Do you still think it makes sense to trade a teams sole post player for a bunch of perimeter players in order to make a weak point?

Yes or no? Do you think Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat were collectively better than Duncan's during 04, 06, 08?

[history2b]

Yes or no. Were Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat collectively better than Duncan's in 04, 06, 08?

And I don't really need to prove anything. Since he entered the league, no other superstar has played with better players than Kobe Bryant.


I couldn't say for sure one way or another. Might be the case for one year but not the next. I do know that Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson are 4-1 versus Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich head to head in the playoffs.

I do know that Tim Duncan has had the pieces in order to be successful since the first day he stepped onto the NBA hardwood; in the form of all time great centers, all time great perimeter international players, all time great defenders and all time great role players as well as an all time great coach.

So to play the imaginary, immeasurable "I think player X had a little more help than player Y" game is nothing more than exercise in futility.

[midnightpulp]

I couldn't say for sure one way or another. Might be the case for one year but not the next. I do know that Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson are 4-1 versus Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich head to head in the playoffs.

I do know that Tim Duncan has had the pieces in order to be successful since the first day he stepped onto the NBA hardwood; in the form of all time great centers, all time great perimeter international players, all time great defenders and all time great role players as well as an all time great coach.

So to play the imaginary, immeasurable "I think player X had a little more help than player Y" game is nothing more than exercise in futility.

Taking a cue from you here. So is the game played one-on-one with only one coach on the sidelines?

Why don't you make a sensical statement and say, "The Lakers are 4-1 since '00 against the Spurs."

Why do you have this insistence on exalting the individual over the team? And how can you logically construct an argument, for any player, that championships add to personal legacy when NBA basketball is play as a team.

You're supposed to be this great purveyor of logic and truth, and crediting the individual for a team accomplishment is illogical.

[history2b]

Taking a cue from you here. So is the game played one-on-one with only one coach on the sidelines?

Why don't you make a sensical statement and say, "The Lakers are 4-1 since '00 against the Spurs."

Why do you have this insistence on exalting the individual over the team? And how can you logically construct an argument, for any player, that championships add to personal legacy when NBA basketball is play as a team.

You're supposed to be this great purveyor of logic and truth, and crediting the individual for a team accomplishment is illogical.


Because I didn't use Kobe and Phil as a unit of measure like you did with "2nd options." You tried to use the "2nd option" argument to compare the relative contributions of those respective players as a unit of measure which of course we all know is a fallacy.

Whereas stating a fact like Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are 4-1 versus Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan is just that, a fact.

Amazing that you are that stupid you cannot enough make the distinction on your own. No bother, I am here to help you.

I haven't exalted any player over the team anyway, another fabrication on your part but I do acknowledge the fact that winning championships does lend to the personal legacy of individual players because that is the ultimate measure of success. Why wouldn't it?

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE]Because I didn't use Kobe and Phil as a unit of measure like you did with "2nd options." You tried to use the "2nd option" argument to compare the relative contributions of those respective players as a unit of measure which of course we all know is a fallacy.

Whereas stating a fact like Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are 4-1 versus Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan is just that, a fact.

Amazing that you are that stupid you cannot enough make the distinction on your own. No bother, I am here to help you.

Keep spinning. Unlike you, I read between the lines, and what you're implying is that Kobe has some kind of personal victory over Tim Duncan. Let's ignore the facts that they play different positions and that the surrounding team had influence on the outcome. I can easily say, Nash 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs. Does that statement mean anything? No. You just like saying Kobe 4-1 over Duncan because it irritates Spurs fans.


I do acknowledge the fact that winning championships does lend to the personal legacy of individual players because that is the ultimate measure of success. Why wouldn't it?

Why wouldn't it? Because it's inherent contradiction that an individual player should be lauded over another player because of team success. This isn't golf or tennis.

Take this extreme example.

Player A has made it to 6 Finals. He's lost every one, but averaged 35ppg, 20rpg, on 60%FG, played great defense, and observation suggests he didn't negatively affect the outcome by choking in some fashion.

Player B plays the same position. He's won 6 championships, defeating Player A heads up for those championships, but his averages were 25ppg, 9rpg, on 49%FG and his defense mediocre.

Who's the better player? (Let's assume they have an equal amount of regular season accomplishments and similar regular season stats). Who should rank higher on the all-time list?

I'm sorry, but the "he has more rings argument" simplifies things way too much. But I understand it's an argument that is currently en vogue for you Kobe-fans because he recently one upped Shaq and Duncan.

You weren't signing this same tune when Kobe was in the lottery, incessantly caterwauling about how your hero has "no help," which was true, but when I try to make the argument that Duncan's help wasn't sufficient enough to repeat, I'm a "fanboy" and "illogical."

Classic Lakerfag double-think.

[Jose Canseco]

Yes there was. It was to show that in those particular series that essentially determined if either respective team was going to repeat, that Kobe's second option provided significantly more help than Tim's. '04 especially, where Tony Parker shot a putrid .380. If Duncan had an offensive second option like Tracy McGrady, he repeats without question.

First off, even with a healthy, in his prime T-Mac, it would be absolutely no guarantee that the 2004 Spurs beat the 2004 Pistons. So no, it isn't "without question" he repeats.

As for the initial point about comparing Kobe's and Shaq's stats, there is no point. You want to talk about the amount of help each had, then you don't just stop at "second option." As you already admitted, winning championships is a "team" accomplishment. It's not an individual accomplishment. It's not even an accomplishment of only two or three players on a team. As has been said, the NBA isn't a 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 game.

So look at all of the teammates contributions, not just the second option or other primary option. And since you're focused pretty much on just scoring, let's look at just that.

Duncan's teammates' playoff stats in 2004, 2006, and 2008
73.3 PPG
43.9% FG

Kobe's teammates' playoff stats in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2010
71.5 PPG
45.8% FG

Take from that what you will...

[z0sa]

7-27

10-27 you mean?

[midnightpulp]

First off, even with a healthy, in his prime T-Mac, it would be absolutely no guarantee that the 2004 Spurs beat the 2004 Pistons. So no, it isn't "without question" he repeats.

As for the initial point about comparing Kobe's and Shaq's stats, there is no point. You want to talk about the amount of help each had, then you don't just stop at "second option." As you already admitted, winning championships is a "team" accomplishment. It's not an individual accomplishment. It's not even an accomplishment of only two or three players on a team. As has been said, the NBA isn't a 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 game.

So look at all of the teammates contributions, not just the second option or other primary option. And since you're focused pretty much on just scoring, let's look at just that.

Duncan's teammates' playoff stats in 2004, 2006, and 2008
73.3 PPG
43.9% FG

Kobe's teammates' playoff stats in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2010
71.5 PPG
45.8% FG

Take from that what you will...

I didn't mean to slight your Pistons. But Duncan+Tmac+Parker (getting rid of Manu, Turkeyglue, and Mercer) would be the favorites in that series.

And those stats are incomplete without rebounding, steals, blocks, 3pt shooting (Spurs got that one easily), assists, etc. More to a supporting than scoring.

[history2b]

[QUOTE=history2b;4699632]

Keep spinning. Unlike you, I read between the lines, and what you're implying is that Kobe has some kind of personal victory over Tim Duncan. Let's ignore the facts that they play different positions and that the surrounding team had influence on the outcome. I can easily say, Nash 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs. Does that statement mean anything? No. You just like saying Kobe 4-1 over Duncan because it irritates Spurs fans.



Why wouldn't it? Because it's inherent contradiction that an individual player should be lauded over another player because of team success. This isn't golf or tennis.

Take this extreme example.

Player A has made it to 6 Finals. He's lost every one, but averaged 35ppg, 20rpg, on 60%FG, played great defense, and observation suggests he didn't negatively affect the outcome by choking in some fashion.

Player B plays the same position. He's won 6 championships, defeating Player A heads up for those championships, but his averages were 25ppg, 9rpg, on 49%FG and his defense mediocre.

Who's the better player? (Let's assume they have an equal amount of regular season accomplishments and similar regular season stats). Who should rank higher on the all-time list?

I'm sorry, but the "he has more rings argument" simplifies things way too much. But I understand it's an argument that is currently en vogue for you Kobe-fans because he recently one upped Shaq and Duncan.

You weren't signing this same tune when Kobe was in the lottery, incessantly caterwauling about how your hero has "no help," which was true, but when I try to make the argument that Duncan's help wasn't sufficient enough to repeat, I'm a "fanboy" and "illogical."

Classic Lakerfag double-think.


Nash is 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs... doesn't bother me one bit. But Nash and Kobe aren't in the discussion for best player in of the era so their head to head is more arbitrary. Kobe didn't only beat Nash during Suns down years. Quite the opposite in fact.

On the other hand the Lakers and Spurs fought for supremacy for more than a decade. OBVIOUSLY it makes sense to evaluate their head to head record. If it was 4-3 or 3-2, it would be a bit more reasonable to dismiss the validity of this record but 4-1 is complete domination. Basically lucky year the Spurs got lucky... just like the Suns did this past year vs the Spurs I suppose.

Has nothing to do with being "lauded." It's about the appropriate level of respect earned based on the contribution and role played within the team.

Rings argument is not en vogue and only a moron would suggest it. Rings are what separates Russell from Chamberlain, Magic from John Stockton and so on and so forth. The greatest players of all time have always been players who've propelled their teams to the most success. This is not new.

What is "en vogue" is for fan boys whose man crushes happen to have less championships than a hated rival to diminish the significance of winning.

In the end it's about the ring count and your contribution towards those rings. Been that way for what? 60+ years. Lol

[Giuseppe]

[QUOTE=midnightpulp;4699694]In the end it's about the ring count

There is nothing else.

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=midnightpulp;4699694]


[QUOTE][QUOTE]Nash is 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs... doesn't bother me one bit. But Nash and Kobe aren't in the discussion for best player in of the era so their head to head is more arbitrary. Kobe didn't only beat Nash during Suns down years. Quite the opposite in fact.



On the other hand the Lakers and Spurs fought for supremacy for more than a decade. OBVIOUSLY it makes sense to evaluate their head to head record. If it was 4-3 or 3-2, it would be a bit more reasonable to dismiss the validity of this record but 4-1 is complete domination. Basically lucky year the Spurs got lucky... just like the Suns did this past year vs the Spurs I suppose.

Why do you conveniently ignore that the other player in the best player since Jordan argument, Shaq, was on your team? Also, the record stands at 4-2 since the Jordan-era, quit cherry picking. Oh, and I like the way your moving the goal posts. You definitively endorsed the 4-1 head-to-head score without qualification, but when I exposed your faulty logic in citing arbitrary "head-to-head" match ups like they mean something, now it's only when the "two players are in discussion for the best player of the decade." :lol



Rings argument is not en vogue and only a moron would suggest it. Rings are what separates Russell from Chamberlain, Magic from John Stockton and so on and so forth. The greatest players of all time have always been players who've propelled their teams to the most success. This is not new.

Then why do many experts have Wilt higher than Russell? Or Oscar higher than Hondo? Or Isiah Thomas higher than Pippen?


What is "en vogue" is for fan boys whose man crushes happen to have less championships than a hated rival to diminish the significance of winning.

Only mancrush in this thread is yours on Kobe. You've been that way for years on the ESPN boards. It's why you cry like a girl with a skinned knee when Cholo and Elf ruin your Kobe loving fun.

Oh, and before the Gasol trade, I remember starting a thread on the Lakers board arguing Duncan was greater than Shaq, because Duncan never had a player like Kobe Bryant as a 2nd.

Guess who agreed with me? You did.

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=history2b;4699722]

There is nothing else.

I agree. But teams win rings. Not individual players by themselves.

[Giuseppe]

I agree. But teams win rings. Not individual players by themselves.

The individual ring count is just a trolling mechanism like it was when it was Duncan: 4 & Kobe: 3.

What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[midnightpulp]

The individual ring count is just a trolling mechanism like it was when it was Duncan: 4 & Kobe: 3.

What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I never used that. I think ring smack is pretty lame.

My biggest issue with Kobe is his tendency, more like strong habit, to force bad shots and the inefficient manner in which he does it.

Personally, if I had to choose between prime Duncan or prime Kobe, I take Duncan every time.

But I believe in building around the big man and think that all perimeter players (except Jordan) are overrated.

[tbonewalker]

LOL

Poor midnightpulp will never be able to get Kobe off his mind.

Kobe has repeated multiple times is now going for his 2nd 3peat. Duncan never even came close to repeating.

Deal with it kid.

[tbonewalker]

I never used that. I think ring smack is pretty lame.

My biggest issue with Kobe is his tendency, more like strong habit, to force bad shots and the inefficient manner in which he does it.

Personally, if I had to choose between prime Duncan or prime Kobe, I take Duncan every time.

But I believe in building around the big man and think that all perimeter players (except Jordan) are overrated.


Yup, darn that inefficient Kobe and the 5 rings that ensued!!

Bottom line: Spurs suck and the Lakers have won back to back championships while you sit over there and watch from home crying your tears.

[z0sa]

Yup, darn that inefficient Kobe and the 5 rings that ensued!!

Thanks to building around an extremely efficient big man.


Bottom line: Spurs suck and the Lakers have won back to back championships while you sit over there and watch from home crying your tears.

Why do you feel the need to describe the Spurs in this context, or someone crying? Does that make you feel better about Kobe only having 2 Finals MVPs in 7 tries?

[Koolaid_Man]

LOL

Poor midnightpulp will never be able to get Kobe off his mind.

Kobe has repeated multiple times is now going for his 2nd 3peat. Duncan never even came close to repeating.

Deal with it kid.


mid...I guess that's short for midget....you better listen to your fellow Spur com-padres...:lmao even they're tiring of your incessant rants...:rollin

[midnightpulp]

Please love my Kobe :cry

[history2b]

I wouldn't want anyone to love him, just don't be a moron about him.

"Ring smack" lol

Yeah, that pesky barometer of greatness since, ohh the beginning time.

[midnightpulp]

I wouldn't want anyone to love him, just don't be a moron about him.

"Ring smack" lol

Yeah, that pesky barometer of greatness since, ohh the beginning time.

For teams, I agree.

And I don't think you understand the concept of "ring smack" as it applies on a message board.

To come here and flaunt the Lakers championships like they're your own for the purpose of putting down fans of other teams who have less or none is beyond pathetic.

[history2b]

Why do you conveniently ignore that the other player in the best player since Jordan argument, Shaq, was on your team? Also, the record stands at 4-2 since the Jordan-era, quit cherry picking. Oh, and I like the way your moving the goal posts. You definitively endorsed the 4-1 head-to-head score without qualification, but when I exposed your faulty logic in citing arbitrary "head-to-head" match ups like they mean something, now it's only when the "two players are in discussion for the best player of the decade." :lol

Nash versus Kobe was never a legitimate debate in the NBA. No one cares about guys who don't win rings. Nash can be compared to the Dirk's, AI's and TMacs of the league... this is yet another example of something that should be obvious but to the few morons out there with a bone to pick they'll say anything no matter how irrelevant the comparison.

I'm glad you pointed out the 4-2 overall record the Lakers hold over the Spurs since 1999.

1999 was a year when Kobe Bryant had yet mature (20 years old, first year as a starter) and the Lakers lacked a true leader. Enter Phil Jackson who promptly whips Shaq's fat ass into shape, gets him to rebound and defend and magically the Lakers win 3 straight championships.

Sure the Spurs won in the * shortened season in 1999, technically at a time when it would have been late February / early March in the NBA season. Hooray for *'s!!




Then why do many experts have Wilt higher than Russell? Or Oscar higher than Hondo? Or Isiah Thomas higher than Pippen?

Quite a few have Russell over Wilt, lol. Hondo doesn't get the credit that Russell does hence his lower ranking and just as Pippen doesn't get the recognition for playing with Michael. Both are great players but neither were considered to have impacted their team's success as much as others. That's just the way it is. Had Pip gone on to win again, perhaps he'd have shifted this perspective but he didn't.


Only mancrush in this thread is yours on Kobe. You've been that way for years on the ESPN boards. It's why you cry like a girl with a skinned knee when Cholo and Elf ruin your Kobe loving fun.

Because I'm not looking for a reason to have your idiotic perspective lol? A Pov so bitter and damaged you actively look for all angles to prove that Kobe Bryant, someone "experts" consider to be an all time great player, really isn't all that great.... really? That's what you spend your time trying to prove? Why not just try and prove that gravity doesn't exist or that the Sun really rotates around the Earth?

And how out of touch are you citing "Elf and Cholo" of all people. Elf's a comedian and a cool guy I might add and Cholo is a drunken belligerent ex con who never played basketball in his life. Excellent insight.


Oh, and before the Gasol trade, I remember starting a thread on the Lakers board arguing Duncan was greater than Shaq, because Duncan never had a player like Kobe Bryant as a 2nd.

Guess who agreed with me? You did.

There was a time when I thought Tim was better than Shaq but that was many years ago and while I think they are both very close, I give the nod to Shaq for playing at a higher level than Tim ever did.

Nothing wrong with that either, it's just that neither are as good as Kobe Bryant.

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE]Nash versus Kobe was never a legitimate debate in the NBA. No one cares about guys who don't win rings. Nash can be compared to the Dirk's, AI's and TMacs of the league... this is yet another example of something that should be obvious but to the few morons out there with a bone to pick they'll say anything no matter how irrelevant the comparison.

God, you're such a fuckin' moron. No wonder everyone here, including Lakers fans, thinks you're a terrible poster. So if Duncan, with a much better supporting cast, met Kobe in 06 and 07 when Kobe was dragging along Smush and Kwame, and won both times, squaring the record at 4-4, that would somehow magically give Duncan more ammunition in the debate? That's a ridiculous idea. There's so many variables that determine the outcome of a game or playoff series that to reduce it to a star player vs. star player competition is illogical. Are you really this intellectually challenged?

Related to this point. Many experts have the Lakers as the greatest franchise of all-time, despite having one less ring and a 9-3 head-to-head disadvantage. Now why is that? If head-to-head records were that important, in any context, why isn't the choice abundantly clear?


I'm glad you pointed out the 4-2 overall record the Lakers hold over the Spurs since 1999.

1999 was a year when Kobe Bryant had yet mature (20 years old, first year as a starter) and the Lakers lacked a true leader. Enter Phil Jackson who promptly whips Shaq's fat ass into shape, gets him to rebound and defend and magically the Lakers win 3 straight championships.

Sure the Spurs won in the * shortened season in 1999, technically at a time when it would have been late February / early March in the NBA season. Hooray for *'s!!

Excuses, excuses. All said and done, your boys got swept out of the Forum.



Quite a few have Russell over Wilt, lol. Hondo doesn't get the credit that Russell does hence his lower ranking and just as Pippen doesn't get the recognition for playing with Michael. Both are great players but neither were considered to have impacted their team's success as much as others. That's just the way it is. Had Pip gone on to win again, perhaps he'd have shifted this perspective but he didn't.

Yes, quite a few have Wilt over Russell, Oscar over Hakeem, etc.



Because I'm not looking for a reason to have your idiotic perspective lol? A Pov so bitter and damaged you actively look for all angles to prove that Kobe Bryant, someone "experts" consider to be an all time great player, really isn't all that great.... really? That's what you spend your time trying to prove? Why not just try and prove that gravity doesn't exist or that the Sun really rotates around the Earth?


Strawman. I never said Kobe "really isn't all that great." I have him number 10 all-time. I just don't believe he's better than Shaq and Timmy, or that he's Jordan incarnate.


And how out of touch are you citing "Elf and Cholo" of all people. Elf's a comedian and a cool guy I might add and Cholo is a drunken belligerent ex con who never played basketball in his life. Excellent insight.

I never implied they had great basketball takes. I was referring to the way all you Kobe fantards get butthurt when they challenge the greatness of your hero, Lord, savior, and lover.



There was a time when I thought Tim was better than Shaq but that was many years ago and while I think they are both very close, I give the nod to Shaq for playing at a higher level than Tim ever did.


Fair enough.


Nothing wrong with that either, it's just that neither are as good as Kobe Bryant.

Fair enough. I don't agree, however.

[Nahtanoj]

Individually..

If you value peak, Shaq was easily the greatest center of all time.

I value longevity, and to me Duncan and Kobe are up there with the best of all time - Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan. Can't say one is greater than the other, both are definitely Top 10 All-Time.. give me Kobe or Duncan and I'd be happy as a franchise.

Repeating is not important to an individual player's legacy I think. It is more of a measure of team success, a dynasty. I think most would agree a team that threepeats is a greater dynasty than a team that wins three in five years. Although if you ask an owner which route they'd choose, they would just be happy with either one of them. Winning is winning.

[midnightpulp]

Individually..

If you value peak, Shaq was easily the greatest center of all time.

I value longevity, and to me Duncan and Kobe are up there with the best of all time - Russell, Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Jordan. Can't say one is greater than the other, both are definitely Top 10 All-Time.. give me Kobe or Duncan and I'd be happy as a franchise.

Repeating is not important to an individual player's legacy I think. It is more of a measure of team success, a dynasty. I think most would agree a team that threepeats is a greater dynasty than a team that wins three in five years. Although if you ask an owner which route they'd choose, they would just be happy with either one of them. Winning is winning.

:tu

That's the whole point I'm trying to make.

[Killakobe81]

Im here bored on a business trip so I'll bite. I dont care if you are playing an individual sport like tennis or a team sport like football/basketball ...winning titles is all that matters in the end. Joakim's dad and Mcenroe were much more exciting players than Fed or sampras but you know who is greater? The one with more titles. Montana was boring. Marino was much more exciting to watch and one of my all-time favorite QB's But he is not greater all-time than Montana, Elway Farve or young. I could make some whiny excuses that elway never won until Terrel Davis or argue "give Marino Jerry rice or ronnie Lott as team-mates and he would win too". But i live in a real world not a fantasy one. Of course some nit wit will use the "horry defense" or bring up "trent dilfer" but what do either have to do in a discussion of the all-time greats? As much as admire marino he is not greater than those guys because he failed to ring. Period. i accept that. For example, I think hakeem was a more dominant force in his prime than tim. He has great stats and led his team to repeat and beat all the best centers of his generation in the two titke years. But Duncan has 4 rings. Hakeem only 2. So Tim did not repeat? it doesnt bug me but those 4 rings stand out. That to me, gives Tim the edge. If Hakeem was >>> better than duncan the two ring difference would not matter. But since it is close IMHO the rings are the tie breaker.
i feel the same about the kobe vs. Tim debate. Maybe Tim is better (i dont think so) but I believe it is close regardless. I know im biased here, but i use the same criteria in all sports even in the barry vs. emmitt debate. I dont care about YPC, or 20 yard plus runs, i care about titles. To be the greatest you need one. end of story team sport or not.

[tbonewalker]

Individually..

If you value peak, Shaq was easily the greatest center of all time.

I value longevity, and to me Duncan and Kobe are up there with the best of all time - Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan. Can't say one is greater than the other, both are definitely Top 10 All-Time.. give me Kobe or Duncan and I'd be happy as a franchise.

Repeating is not important to an individual player's legacy I think. It is more of a measure of team success, a dynasty. I think most would agree a team that threepeats is a greater dynasty than a team that wins three in five years. Although if you ask an owner which route they'd choose, they would just be happy with either one of them. Winning is winning.


Wrong, if you value peak Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest most dominant center of all time.

[Jose Canseco]

Wrong, if you value peak Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest most dominant center of all time.

"Most dominant," I would agree with Wilt. But depending on what you value in a center and factoring era and competition, "greatest" is arguable. Considering level of competition and overall game, one could argue Hakeem's peak as being the greatest center of all time.

[Jt.ONE]

midnight you still making all these kobe threads?

wtf bro you butthurt?

[history2b]

[QUOTE=history2b;4702127]

God, you're such a fuckin' moron. No wonder everyone here, including Lakers fans, thinks you're a terrible poster. So if Duncan, with a much better supporting cast, met Kobe in 06 and 07 when Kobe was dragging along Smush and Kwame, and won both times, squaring the record at 4-4, that would somehow magically give Duncan more ammunition in the debate? That's a ridiculous idea.

I have have a ton of Laker fan allies... can't say I get along with all nor do I care to. All that matters is respecting the game first... fuck anyone who says otherwise.


There's so many variables that determine the outcome of a game or playoff series that to reduce it to a star player vs. star player competition is illogical. Are you really this intellectually challenged?

I agree there are too many variables to rely on this one factor as the sole reason and it was never rationalized to be in the first place....

Meanwhile here we are in your thread that you created in order to reduce the game to "2nd options." Did you forget that your entire creation here is a vastly reduced understanding of the game, with all those "variables" ignored in order pump up Tim Duncan? Funny isn't it?


Related to this point. Many experts have the Lakers as the greatest franchise of all-time, despite having one less ring and a 9-3 head-to-head disadvantage. Now why is that? If head-to-head records were that important, in any context, why isn't the choice abundantly clear?

That's because the Lakers are the only franchise to have enjoyed success over 5 separate generations, have a lot more Finals appearances, better winning percentages, didn't have a long stretch of missing the playoffs, etc.

Moreover more "experts" only acknowledged the Lakers now because they just beat the Celtics, moving within one title. Had the Celtics won that series and were sitting with 18 vs the Lakers 15 you sure as hell can bet the vast majority would still pick the Celtics.

But greatest was not achieved by Boston Green this past year... a lot has changed in a year, I just hope everyone has the intelligence to understand how.


Excuses, excuses. All said and done, your boys got swept out of the Forum.

The Lakers were terrible that year. I have no qualm admitting that. I didn't like the way Shaq performed back then, I didn't respect him as a leader and Kobe was just a kid. A little maturity from the prodigy and a lot more commitment from the centerpiece is all it took. Had Duncan come into the league at age 17 how would he have done? Can't say for sure but obviously it would have taken some time.



Yes, quite a few have Wilt over Russell, Oscar over Hakeem, etc.

Name them. Links?

I have Oscar over Hakeem as well but not Wilt over Russell and I'm a Laker fan. That's just objectivity. I'm not here trying to twist anyone's arm in order to pump up my own teams stars like some people.

Oscar and Wilt are probably the 2 biggest stat padders the game has ever seen and I don't mean that in a bad way. They both simply dominated the game individually racking up gaudy stats and both ultimately won championships.

For the sake of this conversation, Tim Duncan was never impressive statistically. Quite the opposite in fact.



Strawman. I never said Kobe "really isn't all that great." I have him number 10 all-time. I just don't believe he's better than Shaq and Timmy, or that he's Jordan incarnate.

You haven't made a strong case for either, especially considering how things have shaped up amid the most recent evidence.


I never implied they had great basketball takes. I was referring to the way all you Kobe fantards get butthurt when they challenge the greatness of your hero, Lord, savior, and lover.

Nope, never hurt me either. Had nothing to do with hero's etc.

It was about the game first and they did not respect the game and that's all the beef was ever about, just like it is here with you and you embarrassingly stupid thread title.

[midnightpulp]

Meanwhile here we are in your thread that you created in order to reduce the game to "2nd options." Did you forget that your entire creation here is a vastly reduced understanding of the game, with all those "variables" ignored in order pump up Tim Duncan? Funny isn't it?

Yeah, I tried to reduce the game to 2nd options when in my OP I clearly stated:

"Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact."

Next time, read my post in its entirety before commenting. What likely happened is seeing the name "Kobe" triggered your primal defense mechanisms and you started frothing at the mouth and slapping the keyboard without fully thinking things through. Typical behavior of a Kobe zealot.


That's because the Lakers are the only franchise to have enjoyed success over 5 separate generations, have a lot more Finals appearances, better winning percentages, didn't have a long stretch of missing the playoffs, etc.

Moreover more "experts" only acknowledged the Lakers now because they just beat the Celtics, moving within one title. Had the Celtics won that series and were sitting with 18 vs the Lakers 15 you sure as hell can bet the vast majority would still pick the Celtics.

But greatest was not achieved by Boston Green this past year... a lot has changed in a year, I just hope everyone has the intelligence to understand how.

No qualms there. I had the Lakers as the greatest franchise of all time when they were sitting at 14 rings, primarily because they never experienced a similar drought that the Celtics did from 88 to 2008. One thing we don't like to admit is that winning a championship takes a bit of luck, so consistency, like making the playoffs every year and frequently posting strong regular season records, should be valued for something.


For the sake of this conversation, Tim Duncan was never impressive statistically. Quite the opposite in fact.

Yep. Just like a Kobe fan, always looking at PPG first and the other stats later. Duncan has the 5th highest playoff PER of all time (and again, all PER is taking the elements of the game that can be measured, adjusting for pace, and arriving at a number). Duncan's combined playoff stats, hard stats not advanced, are better than Larry Bird's (even when you remove his later years), Karl Malone's, Patrick Ewing's, David Robinson's Your Lover's, and a few others. Not to mention being one of the best defensive anchors to ever play the game.


You haven't made a strong case for either, especially considering how things have shaped up amid the most recent evidence.

I can, but we'd just be going around in circles. This topic has been argued ad nauseum and simply comes down to opinion. You'd take the guard, I'd take the bigman, not because Tim Duncan is a Spur, but because I think bigmen are inherently more valuable to playoff success than perimeter players.


It was about the game first and they did not respect the game and that's all the beef was ever about, just like it is here with you and you embarrassingly stupid thread title.

Considering your posting history, on here and the ESPN boards, everything leads me to believe that you're a Kobe/Laker fan first, basketball fan second.

[DeadlyDynasty]

1sONfxPCTU0

[midnightpulp]

1sONfxPCTU0

Get along with History?

Nah. Terrible poster.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Get along with History?

Nah. Terrible poster.

you're too wound up, brah

[midnightpulp]

you're too wound up, brah

Not really. I'm discussing basketball with him, putting thought into my replies, even in the face of him being a complete retard. I'm basically invoking Findog and Jam here. Instead of being an asshole and trolling, work them over in a debate.

Retarded points/observations he's made in this discussion:


Accused me of "reducing the game to 2nd options" with the purpose of propping up Tim Duncan over Kobe Bryant. However, the 2nd option angle was simply to demonstrate the team dynamics of basketball and winning a championship, which led to me clearly stating,"Championships are a team accomplishment."

That head-to-head team records somehow influence an individual player debate.

Making excuses for the 4-0 sweep of his Lakers at the hands of the Spurs in 99.


I'm simply having fun seeing what idiotic reply he'll type out next.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Accused me of "reducing the game to 2nd options" with the purpose of propping up Tim Duncan over Kobe Bryant. However, the 2nd option angle was simply to demonstrate the team dynamics of basketball and winning a championship, which led to me clearly stating,"Championships are a team accomplishment."

Agreed, team accomplishment.


That head-to-head team records somehow influence an individual player debate.

In most cases it doesn't.


Making excuses for the 4-0 sweep of his Lakers at the hands of the Spurs in 99.



Lakers were young and stupid, not quite ready for the moment. Spurs were great in the playoffs that year (15-2 IIRC).

[midnightpulp]

Agreed, team accomplishment.



In most cases it doesn't.



Lakers were young and stupid, not quite ready for the moment. Spurs were great in the playoffs that year (15-2 IIRC).

:tu

As for the last point, we can all make excuses for our teams didn't advance in a given year. I just prefer to say, "The better team won," unlike this History cat who is doing everything possible to discredit the Spurs victory that year.

Yeah, and I know I talk shit about the Lakers and act in similar way, but that's primarily to troll dumbfucks like KoolAIDS and go at Lakaluva. Good Lakers fans like yourself often wind up in the crossfire in those debates.

[DeadlyDynasty]

:tu

As for the last point, we can all make excuses for our teams didn't advance in a given year. I just prefer to say, "The better team won," unlike this History cat who is doing everything possible to discredit the Spurs victory that year.

Yeah, and I know I talk shit about the Lakers and act in similar way, but that's primarily to troll dumbfucks like KoolAIDS and go at Lakaluva. Good Lakers fans like yourself often wind up in the crossfire in those debates.

no worries:tu

[JamStone]

If we use generalizations, I'd agree that you should take a very good big man over a very good perimeter player most of the time. But it's obviously not an absolute. Michael Jordan as the exception itself shows that sometimes the greatness of a player will transcend over a general rule of thumb by winning with average big man in an era of the NBA with a lot of great big men.

If two players are relatively equal, use that general rule of thumb and take the big man. I would never begrudge someone saying they'd take Duncan over Kobe. But do you take KG over Kobe? Do you take? Dirk over Kobe? Dwight Howard over Kobe? Maybe some would. But there are those exceptions of great perimeter players who have the type of talent you'd take over a very good big man.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone taking Kobe over Duncan either. I think both have proven to be dominant players teams can build championship teams around. Both need help to win championships. But both can be franchise centerpieces that win titles.

[history2b]

Yeah, I tried to reduce the game to 2nd options when in my OP I clearly stated:

"Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact."

Next time, read my post in its entirety before commenting. What likely happened is seeing the name "Kobe" triggered your primal defense mechanisms and you started frothing at the mouth and slapping the keyboard without fully thinking things through. Typical behavior of a Kobe zealot.

"As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series."

" what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy. "

LMFAO!!

What kind of moron are you? You think it's all a media influenced conspiracy to make us believe championships are an individual accomplishment?

Should the greatest players be established by the ridiculous moronic advanced statistics community?? Hahaha!

Let me make my position clear here: Rings absolutely positively shape individual legacies. Of course it does. It always has and always will. This is not a modern day fad that is "en vogue" which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on a sports message board. It is the ultimate accomplishment, something that can only be achieved by individuals who embody and embrace what it means to great.

In some cases, some really really good players end up never winning and yes their legacies suffer as a consequence (Malone, Barkley, Baylor, Stockton). Sometimes a great player will only achieve that ultimate level of success once in their lifetime (West, Robertson, Garnett)

And then there are those players who win several times that really achieve greatness (Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem) who really separate themselves from the rest of the pack.

And then every so often there are players who can win multiple times consecutively even after having to entirely rebuild the team around them (Jordan, Russell, Kobe).

These particularly players proved that they can be a big part of winning championships (which is the goal of playing the game) over and over again even as the pieces around them rotated. That is the very definition of greatness.


Yep. Just like a Kobe fan, always looking at PPG first and the other stats later. Duncan has the 5th highest playoff PER of all time (and again, all PER is taking the elements of the game that can be measured, adjusting for pace, and arriving at a number). Duncan's combined playoff stats, hard stats not advanced, are better than Larry Bird's (even when you remove his later years), Karl Malone's, Patrick Ewing's, David Robinson's Your Lover's, and a few others. Not to mention being one of the best defensive anchors to ever play the game.

Where did I post "PPG" provide a link and quote please.


I can, but we'd just be going around in circles. This topic has been argued ad nauseum and simply comes down to opinion. You'd take the guard, I'd take the bigman, not because Tim Duncan is a Spur, but because I think bigmen are inherently more valuable to playoff success than perimeter players.

Nothing to do with bigs vs smalls. Has to do with game vs. game.


Considering your posting history, on here and the ESPN boards, everything leads me to believe that you're a Kobe/Laker fan first, basketball fan second.

You clearly don't read much nor is your comprehension very strong then. It's the same reason why I, on the Laker board as you already admitted, went against Laker fans in saying Duncan was superior to Shaq several years ago. The same reason why I admit Russell is better than Wilt.

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE]

What kind of moron are you? You think it's all a media influenced conspiracy to make us believe championships are an individual accomplishment?


And what kind of moron are you to think that the media, along with Madison Avenue, doesn't have a vested interest in marketing individual players? What's going to sell more: A Lakers jersey with no name on the back, or a Lakers jersey with "Bryant" on the back? Do consumers buy Lakers shoes? Or do they buy Kobe Mark V, or whatever the hell his latest shoe is called? Jesus Christ, how naive can you be to believe that the media doesn't influence the public's perception of sports. Ask Bill Russell, ask Tim Duncan, ask Magic why they won. Their replies, "I was on some great teams."


Let me make my position clear here: Rings absolutely positively shape individual legacies. Of course it does. It always has and always will. This is not a modern day fad that is "en vogue" which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on a sports message board. It is the ultimate accomplishment, something that can only be achieved by individuals who embody and embrace what it means to great.

Here you go again. When you look at things with cold, hard logic, individual impact can go so far before other factors begin to positively or negatively influence the outcome. Think about it. Dirk is labeled as a "choker," but if Josh Howard came to play against Miami, Dirk would suddenly be vaulted up in the all time great rankings and that label would disappear, even if his individual stats didn't change one iota. That's how silly and absurd the "rings argument" is.

When I used to debate Tim Duncan vs. Karl Malone, I never copped out with the "rings argument." I pointed to Malone's significant drop in FG% from the regular season to the post-season, as well as a decline in his other stats, while showing how Duncan remained consistent across the board, improving his output in most categories. Never did I say, "Duncan 4 rings, Malone 0. Har, har, har." That's an intellectually lazy position to take. If you're going to compare individual players, compare them individually.


In some cases, some really really good players end up never winning and yes their legacies suffer as a consequence (Malone, Barkley, Baylor, Stockton). Sometimes a great player will only achieve that ultimate level of success once in their lifetime (West, Robertson, Garnett)

And then there are those players who win several times that really achieve greatness (Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem) who really separate themselves from the rest of the pack.

And then every so often there are players who can win multiple times consecutively even after having to entirely rebuild the team around them (Jordan, Russell, Kobe).

These particularly players proved that they can be a big part of winning championships (which is the goal of playing the game) over and over again even as the pieces around them rotated. That is the very definition of greatness.


And supporting casts had nothing to with the winning of those championships or lackthereof :rollseyes


Where did I post "PPG" provide a link and quote please.


You implied it. You said Duncan's stats are not impressive, when in truth, they are impressive aside from PPG.


Nothing to do with bigs vs smalls. Has to do with game vs. game.


Big and smalls play fundamentally different games. I don't even really like comparing guards with bigmen. To me, it's like comparing a quarterback to a running back, but sometimes I can't help indulging myself in these kind of useless debates.


You clearly don't read much nor is your comprehension very strong then. It's the same reason why I, on the Laker board as you already admitted, went against Laker fans in saying Duncan was superior to Shaq several years ago. The same reason why I admit Russell is better than Wilt.

You can be a Kobe-zealot, but as long as you're consistent, I'll have no issue. Fine, you believe rings provide a tangible real world boost to an individual player's legacy, but I just hope you can extrapolate that POV with consistency when comparing other players.

So is Shaq higher on the all-time list than Wilt? Is Duncan higher than Hakeem, Oscar, or Bird?

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and I'm looking at many top ten lists right now, and every one so far has Wilt higher than Russell.

Now, remember, I am one of the few Russell endorsers on this board, so I don't agree, but it goes to show you that rings ain't everything.

[history2b]

Oh, and I'm looking at many top ten lists right now, and every one so far has Wilt higher than Russell.

Now, remember, I am one of the few Russell endorsers on this board, so I don't agree, but it goes to show you that rings ain't everything.

Links were supposed to be provided...

[midnightpulp]

Links were supposed to be provided...

Lol, does it matter?

I know how your mind works. You just dismiss the credibility of any POV that isn't compatible with yours.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

midnight, we've tussled before, but I think we both agree we know a lot about the game.

My own belief is big men are more valuable than guards or forwards. Also, it is extremely difficult to compare bigs to smalls because they play a completely different game.

Big man on offense, think prime Chamberlain, Abdul Jabbar, or Shaq as constant scoring threats. You need a big to try to slow them down and contest for rebounds. Few smalls could do that, think Wes Unseld for one. It's rare a center guards a wing man, unless he's an outside threat, think Jerry Lucas for the Knicks in 1972.

It's rare a center participates in the fast break. He gets the rebound and throws an outlet pass and the little guys run while he trots back. Think Bill Russell. Or he gets integrated into the half court offense, think Wilt.

Smalls guard smalls. Sometimes forwards guard guards, think Pippen on Magic 1991 finals. A small forward or shooting guard can get you a lot of points in a hurry, just as a dominating center can. Think Robertson, Baylor, West, Erving, Gervin, Bird, Wade, Bryant, or James. Virtually the only time they meet the opposing center is driving to the rim. Shaq, and Kareem fouled out many games, Wilt averaged 2 fouls per game and never fouled out.

I have Duncan ahead of Russell all time. Put Tim in the Chamberlain/Russell era as a center and he would rebound just as well as either and score closer to Wilt than to Russell.

Bigs make the game go, you build around them. Think Boston trading for Russell's draft rights. Conversely, think Portland drafting Bowie and Oden over Jordan and Durant. Now those were bad picks because the centers they picked were busts, and the players they passed on were elite superstars, but it didn't have to be that way. If they were healthy, it could have been great. Remember, Hakeem was picked ahead of Jordan as well and Houston did well with him.

It's easy to see Tim is > Kobe even with one less ring. I myself think Kobe needs at least 7 rings to have a chance to convince people he's the best Laker over Magic. If Kobe rings that many times and Tim doesn't, he'll probably be remembered as > Tim, but it won't be for awhile. Even with 7 rings, that really doesn't make him much better though does it? He's still the same player, he just had the right teammates.

[midnightpulp]

midnight, we've tussled before, but I think we both agree we know a lot about the game.

My own belief is big men are more valuable than guards or forwards. Also, it is extremely difficult to compare bigs to smalls because they play a completely different game.

Big man on offense, think prime Chamberlain, Abdul Jabbar, or Shaq as constant scoring threats. You need a big to try to slow them down and contest for rebounds. Few smalls could do that, think Wes Unseld for one. It's rare a center guards a wing man, unless he's an outside threat, think Jerry Lucas for the Knicks in 1972.

It's rare a center participates in the fast break. He gets the rebound and throws an outlet pass and the little guys run while he trots back. Think Bill Russell. Or he gets integrated into the half court offense, think Wilt.

Smalls guard smalls. Sometimes forwards guard guards, think Pippen on Magic 1991 finals. A small forward or shooting guard can get you a lot of points in a hurry, just as a dominating center can. Think Robertson, Baylor, West, Erving, Gervin, Bird, Wade, Bryant, or James. Virtually the only time they meet the opposing center is driving to the rim. Shaq, and Kareem fouled out many games, Wilt averaged 2 fouls per game and never fouled out.

I have Duncan ahead of Russell all time. Put Tim in the Chamberlain/Russell era as a center and he would rebound just as well as either and score closer to Wilt than to Russell.

Bigs make the game go, you build around them. Think Boston trading for Russell's draft rights. Conversely, think Portland drafting Bowie and Oden over Jordan and Durant. Now those were bad picks because the centers they picked were busts, and the players they passed on were elite superstars, but it didn't have to be that way. If they were healthy, it could have been great. Remember, Hakeem was picked ahead of Jordan as well and Houston did well with him.

It's easy to see Tim is > Kobe even with one less ring. I myself think Kobe needs at least 7 rings to have a chance to convince people he's the best Laker over Magic. If Kobe rings that many times and Tim doesn't, he'll probably be remembered as > Tim, but it won't be for awhile. Even with 7 rings, that really doesn't make him much better though does it? He's still the same player, he just had the right teammates.

Can't say I disagree with anything.

We disagree on Russell's all-time status, but I totally understand your argument. It relates to my point that rings are a team accomplishment that in today's culture are being ostensibly reduced to an individual accomplishment. This moron History says it's always been like that, but if it was, then why did Jerry West win a Finals MVP in a losing effort?

You were alive back then. Before the advertising blitz, were individual players afforded more status because they won rings? I've read many times that the prevailing opinion during Russell's dominance was that, despite Russell winning rings, Oscar, Wilt, and to an extent, West, were considered better players.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Can't say I disagree with anything.

We disagree on Russell's all-time status, but I totally understand your argument. It relates to my point that rings are a team accomplishment that in today's culture are being ostensibly reduced to an individual accomplishment. This moron History says it's always been like that, but if it was, then why did Jerry West win a Finals MVP in a losing effort?

You were alive back then. Before the advertising blitz, were individual players afforded more status because they won rings? I've read many times that the prevailing opinion during Russell's dominance was that, despite Russell winning rings, Oscar, Wilt, and to an extent, West, were considered better players.
I have a thread I made about a top 20 all time that didn't get much activity, I'll repeat some of what I said there and elsewhere.

History tells us offense is what shaped opinion on basketball in the early days. Boston, and later UCLA, figured out defense was the key because it created more offensive opportunities. When those dynasties faded, none took their place, basketball began a trend towards parity, at least for awhile. Defense became more valued.

The NBA used to have a territorial draft pick. The idea was a team could reserve a local college star for their first round pick, thus help them at the gate. Tommy Heinsohn and Oscar Robertson were selected this way, among many others.

For what it's worth, the Harlem Globetrotters helped spread the love for the game, and that was all offense; primarily ball movement and trick shots.

Boston players, such as Cousy and Havlicek were considered greater than Russell in that era. Offense, and racism, especially by Bostonians, were the prevalent choices for greatness. As mentioned, an NBA top 10 all time in 1970 would start with Wilt and include Robertson, Baylor, West, Greer, Pettet, Cousy, and Mikan before Russell was even considered. His lack of an offensive game lowered his status. As Jamstone said, he could be replaced by Ben Wallace, who clearly is not top 10 all time. All those other players were all about offense.

Rings to determine greatness. I disagree with the value of this, let's look at history. In 1969 it was Russell 11, Mikan 5. Mikan is on no one's top 10 NBA. In 1985, Kareem got to 4, Magic to 3, and Bird had 2. Those three stopped ringing in 1988, and it was 6, 5, 3 by then. It took until 1998 for Jordan to reach 6 rings. So, the ring argument is recent. In 1969 West beasted the finals and deserved the MVP. I have him ahead of Kobe on my top 20 all time, see the thread I mention. I also have Oscar at #6, although he only rang once. I still don't think Shaq belongs on a top 10 all time, but he's there for now. Other players who once were rock solid top 10's have fallen out, so will many current ones we have selected, eventually. Top 10 lists don't show enough, top 20's do, at least for now.

No matter how many rings LeBron ends up with, he may be the only active player capable of getting into a GOAT argument at the close of his career. Wilt with only 2 rings is many people's first choice.

Yeah, history2B is way off base about most everything he rabbles. I forgot more about basketball than he thinks he knows.

[midnightpulp]

I have a thread I made about a top 20 all time that didn't get much activity, I'll repeat some of what I said there and elsewhere.

History tells us offense is what shaped opinion on basketball in the early days. Boston, and later UCLA, figured out defense was the key because it created more offensive opportunities. When those dynasties faded, none took their place, basketball began a trend towards parity, at least for awhile. Defense became more valued.

The NBA used to have a territorial draft pick. The idea was a team could reserve a local college star for their first round pick, thus help them at the gate. Tommy Heinsohn and Oscar Robertson were selected this way, among many others.

For what it's worth, the Harlem Globetrotters helped spread the love for the game, and that was all offense; primarily ball movement and trick shots.

Boston players, such as Cousy and Havlicek were considered greater than Russell in that era. Offense, and racism, especially by Bostonians, were the prevalent choices for greatness. As mentioned, an NBA top 10 all time in 1970 would start with Wilt and include Robertson, Baylor, West, Greer, Pettet, Cousy, and Mikan before Russell was even considered. His lack of an offensive game lowered his status. As Jamstone said, he could be replaced by Ben Wallace, who clearly is not top 10 all time. All those other players were all about offense.

Rings to determine greatness. I disagree with the value of this, let's look at history. In 1969 it was Russell 11, Mikan 5. Mikan is on no one's top 10 NBA. In 1985, Kareem got to 4, Magic to 3, and Bird had 2. Those three stopped ringing in 1988, and it was 6, 5, 3 by then. It took until 1998 for Jordan to reach 6 rings. So, the ring argument is recent. In 1969 West beasted the finals and deserved the MVP. I have him ahead of Kobe on my top 20 all time, see the thread I mention. I also have Oscar at #6, although he only rang once. I still don't think Shaq belongs on a top 10 all time, but he's there for now. Other players who once were rock solid top 10's have fallen out, so will many current ones we have selected, eventually. Top 10 lists don't show enough, top 20's do, at least for now.

No matter how many rings LeBron ends up with, he may be the only active player capable of getting into a GOAT argument at the close of his career. Wilt with only 2 rings is many people's first choice.

Yeah, history2B is way off base about most everything he rabbles. I forgot more about basketball than he thinks he knows.

Good stuff :tu

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, history2B is way off base about most everything he rabbles. I forgot more about basketball than he thinks he knows.

Very, very true.

Blinded by his intense and passionate love for Kobe.

[history2b]

Lol

2 guys who don't know the game agreeing? Gee what a surprise.

[history2b]

Lol, does it matter?

I know how your mind works. You just dismiss the credibility of any POV that isn't compatible with yours.

Lol, presentation of evidence without citation of sources is called what in academia?

"does it matter?" Lol

[history2b]

I read on a website that Tim Duncan is a raging homosexual and they had video evidence of this...

What? You want a link?

Does it matter? I know how your brain works. You'll defend Duncan and pretend it didn't happen.

[midnightpulp]

I read on a website that Tim Duncan is a raging homosexual and they had video evidence of this...

What? You want a link?

Does it matter? I know how your brain works. You'll defend Duncan and pretend it didn't happen.

If I provide the links that have Wilt over Russell on the all-time list, will you leave this forum forever?

[history2b]

if i provide the links that have wilt over russell on the all-time list, will you leave this forum forever?


lol!!!

[midnightpulp]

lol!!!

Yes or no?

Simple question.

[history2b]

Yes or no?

Simple question.

Can I ask you a question?

When exactly did you figure out that acting like a passive aggressive pussy safely secured behind the anonymity of the internet was the way to go as far as being a message board troll? Sure hyper emotional tendencies are difficult to suppress but come on this ridiculous.

You let a little of this spill out on ESPN but here it's full blown out of control tail spinning.

[midnightpulp]

Can I ask you a question?

When exactly did you figure out that acting like a passive aggressive pussy safely secured behind the anonymity of the internet was the way to go as far as being a message board troll? Sure hyper emotional tendencies are difficult to suppress but come on this ridiculous.

You let a little of this spill out on ESPN but here it's full blown out of control tail spinning.

What the hell are foaming at the mouth about?

Simple question:

If I post the links, will you leave this forum forever? You think this is a shit forum anyway, so what's the issue?

[history2b]

What the hell are foaming at the mouth about?

Simple question:

If I post the links, will you leave this forum forever? You think this is a shit forum anyway, so what's the issue?


No foam just more observation of a fractured and damaged man.

[midnightpulp]

No foam just more observation of a fractured and damaged man.

Why are you refusing to answer a simple question?

[z0sa]

No foam just more observation of a fractured and damaged man.

lol hates this forum but can't stop posting

[midnightpulp]

No foam just more observation of a fractured and damaged man.

Why are you refusing to answer a simple question?

Quit deflecting.

Yes or no.

[history2b]

lol hates this forum but can't stop posting

I don't hate this board, I just think certain posters make it a below average forum.

Btw thank you for no longer tailing me around every thread.

[history2b]

Why are you refusing to answer a simple question?

Quit deflecting.

Yes or no.

I'll answer it when you realize the ridiculousness of what you are asking.

[midnightpulp]

I'll answer it when you realize the ridiculousness of what you are asking.

Okay. It's a ridiculous question. I realize it.

Now please answer it.

[history2b]

Okay. It's a ridiculous question. I realize it.

Now please answer it.

No you don't.

[midnightpulp]

No you don't.

How can you know that a priori?

I said, without ambiguity, I realize it.

Now please answer my question like you stated. If you don't, I have no choice but to consider you a person of suspect integrity.

[history2b]

how can you know that a priori?

I said, without ambiguity, i realize it.

Now please answer my question like you stated. If you don't, i have no choice but to consider you a person of suspect integrity.

lol!!

[midnightpulp]

lol!!

I'll take that as you backing out.

Once more chance:

Yes or no.

[history2b]

I'll take that as you backing out.

Once more chance:

Yes or no.


lol!!!

[midnightpulp]

I'm a chickenshit

[Leetonidas]

Mid gettin' his regulation on

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Lol

2 guys who don't know the game agreeing? Gee what a surprise.

LOL, I am the Daddy of all trolls. You are a troll, I am your daddy. Son, I forgot more about the game than you ever knew.

Let me ask you a few Lakers related questions, let's see what you know about your own team.

1) Why did Elgin Baylor retire? Specifically.
2) What Buffalo Brave player fell on Jerry West in spring 1971 knocking him out of the rest of the season?
3) Why did the Lakers draft Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich?
4) Name 2 Lakers that were suspended in the 70s for throwing punches, and who did they hit.
5) What Lakers superstar saw the owner give his 3 adolescent sons future NBA contracts. What was special about that night?
6) What happened to Kareem's jazz record collection?
7) How did Kareem celebrate the 1980 championship after the buzzer?
8) Last year, the NBA had a commercial where Magic Johnson utters the phrase, "Get back into our game". What game was that from?
9) Who did Magic Johnson first hug after the 1980 championship was won?
10) Magic Johnson unbelievably committed the same silly error in the 1984 finals that a Maverick did in the western playoffs. What was it?
11) What Portland player in the 1977 WCF did the Lakers have no answer for?
12) What Lakers foe in the 1988 playoffs did Pat Riley say the Lakers had no answer for? You get to figure out who and what series, lol, good luck.

[z0sa]

Be easy on 'im, DOAT, he's only been a Laker lover since Feburary 08.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Be easy on 'im, DOAT, he's only been a Laker lover since Feburary 08.

LOL, here's some more.

13) Why should Jerry West's 60 foot shot to tie the Knicks in 1970 finals at the buzzer have been disallowed?
14) What NBA legend co-authored a book about those 1969-70 Knicks?
15) Does Jeannie Buss shave her bush? Where can proof be found?
16) What was the number one reason Jerry Buss bought the Lakers, he said it himself.
17) Why did Jack Kent Cooke sell the Lakers?
18) What famous 60s TV star once served on the Lakers board of directors?
19) Name the four number 1 overall draft picks to play on the Lakers at one time.
20) Who suggested trading for Mitch Kupchak?

Son, you won't get most of these. I just wanted to prove I forgot more than you think you know.

[midnightpulp]

LOL, here's some more.

13) Why should Jerry West's 60 foot shot to tie the Knicks in 1970 finals at the buzzer have been disallowed?
14) What NBA legend co-authored a book about those 1969-70 Knicks?
15) Does Jeannie Buss shave her bush? Where can proof be found?
16) What was the number one reason Jerry Buss bought the Lakers, he said it himself.
17) Why did Jack Kent Cooke sell the Lakers?
18) What famous 60s TV star once served on the Lakers board of directors?
19) Name the four number 1 overall draft picks to play on the Lakers at one time.
20) Who suggested trading for Mitch Kupchak?

Son, you won't get most of these. I just wanted to prove I forgot more than you think you know.

He's going to accuse you of trying to reduce the game to a meaningless trivia contest, as he did with Man in Black.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

He's going to accuse you of trying to reduce the game to a meaningless trivia contest, as he did with Man in Black.

heh, that's fine. If he does that, we know he can't answer. however, this is his chance to show he knows something. Hell, I'll bet few here can answer many at all.

[midnightpulp]

heh, that's fine. If he does that, we know he can't answer. however, this is his chance to show he knows something. Hell, I'll bet few here can answer many at all.

Have you ran into him in the past, on other boards?

Seems his reputation is shit wherever he goes, as evidence by the backlash at Lakersground where his fellow Purple 'n Gold cohorts regulated him.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Have you ran into him in the past, on other boards?

Seems his reputation is shit wherever he goes, as evidence by the backlash at Lakersground where his fellow Purple 'n Gold cohorts regulated him.

I posted links to his LakersGround intro thread here awhile back, I forgot which thread it's in. I can't search his posts there without a membership, I found him easily though, and was delighted to see his fellow Lakers fans bitch slapped him.

honestly some of his posts are ok, but usually they have a "Lakers kicked Spurs butt so nyah nyah nyah" attitude.

[midnightpulp]

I posted links to his LakersGround intro thread here awhile back, I forgot which thread it's in. I can't search his posts there without a membership, I found him easily though, and was delighted to see his fellow Lakers fans bitch slapped him.

honestly some of his posts are ok, but usually they have a "Lakers kicked Spurs butt so nyah nyah nyah" attitude.

It's because of this ESPN boards. This Spurs troll named Tipsy would incessantly troll the Lakers board when the Lakers were in their rebuilding phase and constantly bring up Duncan's 4 to 3 ring advantage over Kobe. Now that Kobe has assumed the advantage, history2b, as well as many, many other Laker/Kobe obsessives, are now getting their "revenge" for the constant beating their hero and franchise took on message boards all across the Internet.

I'm known as the number one Laker hater on this board, but the funny thing is, I never trolled any Lakers board during that time. On the ESPN boards, I would talk with the Lakers fans respectfully, because the majority of them (bizzchief, rajrerun, nbabballthemesong, etc) were damn good fans and knowledgeable posters. But once Memphis changed the landscape of the NBA and the frontrunners started mouthing off, I sprung into action.

I just find it pathetic that a lot of these Lakers fans magically developed the courage to talk shit when their team became a contender. The majority of them were out surfing from 05-07.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

It's because of this ESPN boards. This Spurs troll named Tipsy would incessantly troll the Lakers board when the Lakers were in their rebuilding phase and constantly bring up Duncan's 4 to 3 ring advantage over Kobe. Now that Kobe has assumed the advantage, history2b, as well as many, many other Laker/Kobe obsessives, are now getting their "revenge" for the constant beating their hero and franchise took on message boards all across the Internet.

I'm known as the number one Laker hater on this board, but the funny thing is, I never trolled any Lakers board during that time. On the ESPN boards, I would talk with the Lakers fans respectfully, because the majority of them (bizzchief, rajrerun, nbabballthemesong, etc) were damn good fans and knowledgeable posters. But once Memphis changed the landscape of the NBA and the frontrunners started mouthing off, I sprung into action.

I just find it pathetic that a lot of these Lakers fans magically developed the courage to talk shit when their team became a contender. The majority of them were out surfing from 05-07.

I tried to sign up for ESPN many months ago and it would never accept it. Sounds like a crazy place, probably full of acne plagued virgin teens.

Here's more trivia, keep the thread alive:

21) What does Happy Hairston have in common with hall of famer Billy Cunningham, Singer/Actress Barbra Streisand, and former world Chess champion Bobby Fischer?

22) Wilt Chamberlain played for the Lakers 5 seasons. In how many did he wear a headband?

23) What former all NBA first teamer hired a hitman to kill the Lakers coach after the latter kicked him off the team during the finals?

24) What Laker did Kareem punch in the head when the Laker was down on the floor and what was significant about that game? (It was on national TV).

25) What Laker did Walt Frazier pick clean twice in succession while bringing the ball up the court to spark the Knicks comeback in game 5 of the 1970 NBA finals?