Ty Lawson: Lakers are Easy Work

[teddygreen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q53xCpme890&feature=player_embedded

[Spursfan092120]

Damn Lawson...last thing we need is Kobe pissed off...Shut...The fuck...Up.

[DPG21920]

^ You scared '09 - get a dog dawg. arrrrf arrrf

[weebo]

he just being real

[mavs>spurs]

^ You scared '09 - get a dog dawg. arrrrf arrrf

squeek squeek

[DPG21920]

^ The noise your bed makes as you sit on your fishing pole

[Riddler]

^ The noise your bed makes as you sit on your fishing pole

:lol

[NRHector]

Damn Lawson...last thing we need is Kobe pissed off...Shut...The fuck...Up.

kobe gets pissed off everygame and they still lose

[mavs>spurs]

^ The noise your bed makes as you sit on your fishing pole

sup brah saw you starred in that new movie The Hobbit tbh never knew you were such an actor

[KaiRMD1]

I think Kobe has been pissed since the season started. Hasn't really produced much but a lot of chucking bricks tbh

[DPG21920]

sup brah saw you starred in that new movie The Hobbit tbh never knew you were such an actor

No one is going to laugh at this joke like they did for the one I made towards you :lol

[rayjayjohnson]

Just Ty laying down the Law, son.

[DPG21920]

^ wait a minute.....I see what you, no, wait, ohhhhhhhhhh I get it. lolz

[Mugen]

Just Ty laying down the Law, son.

http://www.hiyoooo.com/

[mavs>spurs]

per pars per pars per pars

[Clipper Nation]

Just Ty laying down the Law, son.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG





























http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Ty_Law.JPG/220px-Ty_Law.JPG

[mavs>spurs]

^man with his legs cut off who's still taller than dpg?

[DPG21920]

Leave the humor to the cool posters. K, thx.

[Killakobe81]

We can beat nuggs in a playoff series, we always do. If healthy i would not bet on nuggs over us. But we probably don't make playoffs at this rate ... so it doesn't matter.

[DPG21920]

We can beat nuggs in a playoff series, we always do. If healthy i would not bet on nuggs over us. But we probably don't make playoffs at this rate ... so it doesn't matter.

So what are your thoughts on what it means for Kobe's legacy if he misses the playoffs with one of the most talent-laden teams in NBA history (even if its a little awkward fit)?

[mavs>spurs]

whoa dude calm down, you're scaring some posters

[rayjayjohnson]

We can beat nuggs in a playoff series, we always do. If healthy i would not bet on nuggs over us. But we probably don't make playoffs at this rate ... so it doesn't matter.

lakerfan already tending toward blaming injuries. :lmao

[Killakobe81]

lakerfan already tending toward blaming injuries. :lmao

Nope. I ain't blaming shit. I never used injuries as an excuse ...I just called it a pussy move last week. I said if healthy in a SERIES with Nuggs I would take Lakers big difference.

As for DPG it is a factor, but you can't say (not you specifically) say Kobe is big man dependant and other bullshit then blame him solely for this season. When 5>4 is played amb and others argue rings are a team accomplishment, but when they lose it's not? Dat shit cuts both ways blame him here and he gets more credit for 5

[DPG21920]

The fact he is discussed in the top 15 is because he's got 5 and gets a lot of credit IMO.

[ffadicted]

Just Ty laying down the Law, son.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/25376046/tumblr_lzbnknQ38Z1r3x403_large.jpg

[rayjayjohnson]

:lmao more fuel on the burning assfire that is lakersground

[Clipper Nation]

"The Clippers dope as hell"
- Ty Lawson

[Killakobe81]

Not worried I was a realist. Never expected this shitstorm but I saw WCF as this team's ceiling ...I just never thought lottery was possible.

[rayjayjohnson]

"The Clippers dope as hell"
- Ty Lawson

Game recognize game, son.

[timvp]

Lawson back at on dat drank. But I respek it, doe.

[AussieFanKurt]

Kirby to drop 60 on the spurs

[Bynumite]

Flop city fans coming out of the woodwork, after years and years of disrespectful comments towards Billy Crystal, Frankie Muniz etc. :lol


Lawson back at on dat drank. But I respek it, doe.

Have you considered changing the name of the site to lakerstalk.com?

[racm]

Why does Lawson always look blazed off the court?

[rayjayjohnson]

Why does Lawson always look blazed off the court?
cause that's how a nigga roll

[racm]

cause that's how a nigga roll

Son I just remembered weed's legal over there

[Clipper Nation]

Flop city fans coming out of the woodwork

Flop City fans are actually disappearing in droves, as their team is currently 15-18 and just lost all their bigs...

[Ashy Larry]

gotta respect what he said because that shit is true ..........

[InRareForm]

those TMZ interviewers are always such cornballs lol

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Who tha fuck is Ty Lawson??

[rayjayjohnson]

Who tha fuck is Ty Lawson??

i can understand you not knowing who ty is. it's hard to see him when he blows by every pg in the league.

[whitemamba]

unfortunately cant disagree with a nigga

[ambchang]

Nope. I ain't blaming shit. I never used injuries as an excuse ...I just called it a pussy move last week. I said if healthy in a SERIES with Nuggs I would take Lakers big difference.

As for DPG it is a factor, but you can't say (not you specifically) say Kobe is big man dependant and other bullshit then blame him solely for this season. When 5>4 is played amb and others argue rings are a team accomplishment, but when they lose it's not? Dat shit cuts both ways blame him here and he gets more credit for 5

Since this was addressed with direct reference to me, I guess I will have to respond.

First, by essentially saying that Kobe shall remain blameless with the Lakers' disappointment so far in the season based on a twist of my previous argument, are you saying that Kobe should get no credit for the 5 championships when evaluating his personal legacy?

Second, you are not completely getting my argument. My argument in terms of team accomplishments are strictly in the sense of championships, or at least teams going deep into the playoffs. A great player at the top of his game should be able to drag his team to the playoffs. The reason is because
a) winning a championship is a very different animal from making the playoffs
Winning a championship requires a team to be flawless, or at least being the team with the least exploitable flaws, in its construction, and/or favourable matchups. I assumed that, through reading your posts and arguing over the forum throughout the years, that you would know that. A team winning a championship and/or going deep into the playoffs is a matter of team construction, and most team constructions is done through building around one or two major stars. Some players are easier to build around (not being overly biased, but Duncan is one of those), while other require a particular group of players with specific skills to succeed (Dirk is an example).

Another factor is that winning a championship means you are, at least theoretically, the best of 30 teams, that is top 3.33% percentile. On the other hand, making the playoffs in either conference is a top 8 of 15 (that is around top 46/47th %). I suppose I require no further explanation to see how these two are different.

b) the playoffs and the regular season are very different - A team will be exploited in the playoffs because the opposition has much more time to prepare for your team. If your team, as a whole, has a weakness, it will be exploited. The Spurs in the mid 00's was a classic example, the philosophy is to give up the mid range jumper in exchange for rock solid defense on the three point and paint areas. Every single other team couldn't crack that code except the Mavs, because the Mavs had a excellent mid-range game. It is not a matter of one superstar willing the team to victory throughout a series, it is a collective effort.

The regular season, on the other hand, is different. Teams do not have as solid a game plan as they do in the playoffs, and superstars can go out and dominate a game and will a team to victories over the course of a regular season. Of course, if a team was horribly constructed, the opposition can exploit those multitude of weaknesses and the team will still loose in the regular season, but as we know in the NBA, about half the team within any given season are horribly coached and disciplined, so there are about 50% of those given games that are winnable based solely on the effort on one or two superstar players.

In the case of Kobe Bryant, he is an amazing scorer, probably one of the best in the history of the league, and most definitely one of the most skillful ones. That said, his concept of team game is lacking. His credit in the early 00s were largely exaggerated over the years. Anyone who had watched the 00's Lakers knew they were Shaq's team. The offense was designed around Shaq, and the opposition prepare their game plan against Shaq. Ignorant viewers looking at Kobe's numbers over one series (namely 01 vs. the Spurs) and offered it as some kind of proof that Kobe was on equal footing with Shaq, but we all know it's because the Spurs had a very notable weakness, and that is they had horrible perimeter defenders until they got Bowen, and KFC was smart enough to exploit that.

In the late 00's, the Lakers once again won two championships, all credit was heaped on Kobe, but people refuse to acknowledge the importance of other matchups. Gasol was about the perfect fit for Kobe, very skilled, sometimes even dominant player, who has no interest in being the alpha dog. He goes in, does his job, and doesn't worry about getting credit. Gasol in the middle of the paint, along with Odom and sometimes Bynum was easily the best frontline of the NBA during that timespan. Both Gasol and Odom are excellent passing big man, and it was a nightmare for other teams to match up. In other words, this was a perfectly constructed team, and was largely a nightmare for other teams because of a dominant frontline.

Kobe was, and in some respects, still is, a very entertaining player to watch, but his ball-dominant ways have cost the Lakers a few very winnable championships, and his lack of team concept has created some very under-achieving teams (04 to 07, this year). People tend to brush them aside and ignore them when evaluating his personal achievement, and I disagree with that.

[Killakobe81]

Since this was addressed with direct reference to me, I guess I will have to respond.

First, by essentially saying that Kobe shall remain blameless with the Lakers' disappointment so far in the season based on a twist of my previous argument, are you saying that Kobe should get no credit for the 5 championships when evaluating his personal legacy?

Second, you are not completely getting my argument. My argument in terms of team accomplishments are strictly in the sense of championships, or at least teams going deep into the playoffs. A great player at the top of his game should be able to drag his team to the playoffs. The reason is because
a) winning a championship is a very different animal from making the playoffs
Winning a championship requires a team to be flawless, or at least being the team with the least exploitable flaws, in its construction, and/or favourable matchups. I assumed that, through reading your posts and arguing over the forum throughout the years, that you would know that. A team winning a championship and/or going deep into the playoffs is a matter of team construction, and most team constructions is done through building around one or two major stars. Some players are easier to build around (not being overly biased, but Duncan is one of those), while other require a particular group of players with specific skills to succeed (Dirk is an example).

Another factor is that winning a championship means you are, at least theoretically, the best of 30 teams, that is top 3.33% percentile. On the other hand, making the playoffs in either conference is a top 8 of 15 (that is around top 46/47th %). I suppose I require no further explanation to see how these two are different.

b) the playoffs and the regular season are very different - A team will be exploited in the playoffs because the opposition has much more time to prepare for your team. If your team, as a whole, has a weakness, it will be exploited. The Spurs in the mid 00's was a classic example, the philosophy is to give up the mid range jumper in exchange for rock solid defense on the three point and paint areas. Every single other team couldn't crack that code except the Mavs, because the Mavs had a excellent mid-range game. It is not a matter of one superstar willing the team to victory throughout a series, it is a collective effort.

The regular season, on the other hand, is different. Teams do not have as solid a game plan as they do in the playoffs, and superstars can go out and dominate a game and will a team to victories over the course of a regular season. Of course, if a team was horribly constructed, the opposition can exploit those multitude of weaknesses and the team will still loose in the regular season, but as we know in the NBA, about half the team within any given season are horribly coached and disciplined, so there are about 50% of those given games that are winnable based solely on the effort on one or two superstar players.

In the case of Kobe Bryant, he is an amazing scorer, probably one of the best in the history of the league, and most definitely one of the most skillful ones. That said, his concept of team game is lacking. His credit in the early 00s were largely exaggerated over the years. Anyone who had watched the 00's Lakers knew they were Shaq's team. The offense was designed around Shaq, and the opposition prepare their game plan against Shaq. Ignorant viewers looking at Kobe's numbers over one series (namely 01 vs. the Spurs) and offered it as some kind of proof that Kobe was on equal footing with Shaq, but we all know it's because the Spurs had a very notable weakness, and that is they had horrible perimeter defenders until they got Bowen, and KFC was smart enough to exploit that.

In the late 00's, the Lakers once again won two championships, all credit was heaped on Kobe, but people refuse to acknowledge the importance of other matchups. Gasol was about the perfect fit for Kobe, very skilled, sometimes even dominant player, who has no interest in being the alpha dog. He goes in, does his job, and doesn't worry about getting credit. Gasol in the middle of the paint, along with Odom and sometimes Bynum was easily the best frontline of the NBA during that timespan. Both Gasol and Odom are excellent passing big man, and it was a nightmare for other teams to match up. In other words, this was a perfectly constructed team, and was largely a nightmare for other teams because of a dominant frontline.

Kobe was, and in some respects, still is, a very entertaining player to watch, but his ball-dominant ways have cost the Lakers a few very winnable championships, and his lack of team concept has created some very under-achieving teams (04 to 07, this year). People tend to brush them aside and ignore them when evaluating his personal achievement, and I disagree with that.

Dont have time (at the moment) for a longer retort but my point is he gets a huge chunk of both sides the glory and blame for the lakers success or lack there of in my book. I just find it funny (not just you) that when players fans like win, they get so much of the credit but with players that they dislike they work hard to come up with qualifiers when they win (cant win without shaq, Phil, Fisher etc.). Lebron is a perfect example I gave him some flack for Leaving the cavs because I do think it was only a matter of time that he won ... he is THAT good. But when he did win, I did not say he needed Wade or hot 3 point shooting he won period. Same for dirk, I did not say he was Tyson dependent. Ditto Wade etc. To me the best player on a championship team deserves most of (not all) of the credit for winning. And some blame when they lose too ... it is part of his legacy if they fail ... but hardly defines it. I still would give him an edge over Duncan (but duncan can change that with a strong Finals run) but it's why he is not in the class of MJ and Magic. And I would consider bumping back Duncan over Kobe ... since both look liek they have plenty left to show ... one more quick note how is getting in to the playoffs and getting beat in the first round ...make this season any less of a failure? So the weak eastern teams that make the playoffs are a success? I should take one (possibly two) missed playoff seasons over a body of work with 5 rings and two more finals appearances?

[midnightpulp]

Dont have time (at the moment) for a longer retort but my point is he gets a huge chunk of both sides the glory and blame for the lakers success or lack there of in my book. I just find it funny (not just you) that when players fans like win, they get so much of the credit but with players that they dislike they work hard to come up with qualifiers when they win (cant win without shaq, Phil, Fisher etc.). Lebron is a perfect example I gave him some flack for Leaving the cavs because I do think it was only a matter of time that he won ... he is THAT good. But when he did win, I did not say he needed Wade or hot 3 point shooting he won period. Same for dirk, I did not say he was Tyson dependent. Ditto Wade etc. To me the best player on a championship team deserves most of (not all) of the credit for winning. And some blame when they lose too ... it is part of his legacy if they fail ... but hardly defines it. I still would give him an edge over Duncan (but duncan can change that with a strong Finals run) but it's why he is not in the class of MJ and Magic. And I would consider bumping back Duncan over Kobe ... since both look liek they have plenty left to show ... one more quick note how is getting in to the playoffs and getting beat in the first round ...make this season any less of a failure? So the weak eastern teams that make the playoffs are a success? I should take one (possibly two) missed playoff seasons over a body of work with 5 rings and two more finals appearances?

Duncan was the best player on 4 championship teams while Kobe was the best player on 2, so using your logic, why do you rank Duncan lower than Kobe?

[ambchang]

Dont have time (at the moment) for a longer retort but my point is he gets a huge chunk of both sides the glory and blame for the lakers success or lack there of in my book. I just find it funny (not just you) that when players fans like win, they get so much of the credit but with players that they dislike they work hard to come up with qualifiers when they win (cant win without shaq, Phil, Fisher etc.). Lebron is a perfect example I gave him some flack for Leaving the cavs because I do think it was only a matter of time that he won ... he is THAT good. But when he did win, I did not say he needed Wade or hot 3 point shooting he won period. Same for dirk, I did not say he was Tyson dependent. Ditto Wade etc. To me the best player on a championship team deserves most of (not all) of the credit for winning. And some blame when they lose too ... it is part of his legacy if they fail ... but hardly defines it. I still would give him an edge over Duncan (but duncan can change that with a strong Finals run) but it's why he is not in the class of MJ and Magic. And I would consider bumping back Duncan over Kobe ... since both look liek they have plenty left to show ... one more quick note how is getting in to the playoffs and getting beat in the first round ...make this season any less of a failure? So the weak eastern teams that make the playoffs are a success? I should take one (possibly two) missed playoff seasons over a body of work with 5 rings and two more finals appearances?

For a great player, making the playoffs is not a success, it's simply an avoidance of failure. In the history of the league, the only top 10 player who ever missed the playoffs in the prime is Kareem, and that is during the dark ages of the league with drug overdoses. The other one, arguably, was Hakeem, but we all know how drugs and injuries decimated that Rockets team.

If you think the best player on a championship team gets most or all of the credit, then Shaq should get most/all of the credit in 00, 01 and 02, leaving little for Kobe, and it all but shot your argument of 5>4 to hell.

Does a great player require a great team to win the championship? Sure, there have been no precedence otherwise. Even the 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets were built specifically around their respective superstars.
Does a great team require a great player to win a championship? Most of the time, but the 04 Pistons, 78/79 Bullets/Sonics proved otherwise (you can argue 89/90 Pistons, but Isiah Thomas, when on, was a legit superstar, and top 15 all time material).
Does a team require a great player to get into the playoffs? No, it has happened year after year that teams without legit superstars get into the playoffs.
Does a great player require a great team to get into the playoffs? No, no great player have missed the playoffs in his prime other than Kareem in the mid 70s (and aforementioned Hakeem), and as mentioned earlier, those were the dark ages of the league where drugs over took the league. Not to mention ABA taking away legitimate talent away from the league. If anything, it was an aberration in the history of the league. On top of that, there was legitimate reasons for the Bucks/Lakers missing the playoffs those two years.

In 74, KAJ missed 16 games due to injuries. Kareem missed the first 16 games of the season, and the Bucks finished 3-13 in those games. Taking those games away, the Bucks were on a 44-game win season pace, enough to leap-frog Detroit and Sonics for a tied for 2nd place finish with the Kings that season.

The following season, KAJ was traded to the Lakers who essentially missed the playoffs because of the whacked out division system back in the day. They actually finished with the 4th best record in the West that year, but lost out because they were also the fourth best in their division. Lesser teams in the Bucks and Pistons actually made the playoffs because of the whacky seeding format, and the Lakers still finished 4 out of the 9 teams (top half).

[lebomb]

Kirby to drop 60 on the spurs

.......an they still lose by 20

[Killakobe81]

For a great player, making the playoffs is not a success, it's simply an avoidance of failure. In the history of the league, the only top 10 player who ever missed the playoffs in the prime is Kareem, and that is during the dark ages of the league with drug overdoses. The other one, arguably, was Hakeem, but we all know how drugs and injuries decimated that Rockets team.

If you think the best player on a championship team gets most or all of the credit, then Shaq should get most/all of the credit in 00, 01 and 02, leaving little for Kobe, and it all but shot your argument of 5>4 to hell.

Does a great player require a great team to win the championship? Sure, there have been no precedence otherwise. Even the 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets were built specifically around their respective superstars.
Does a great team require a great player to win a championship? Most of the time, but the 04 Pistons, 78/79 Bullets/Sonics proved otherwise (you can argue 89/90 Pistons, but Isiah Thomas, when on, was a legit superstar, and top 15 all time material).
Does a team require a great player to get into the playoffs? No, it has happened year after year that teams without legit superstars get into the playoffs.
Does a great player require a great team to get into the playoffs? No, no great player have missed the playoffs in his prime other than Kareem in the mid 70s (and aforementioned Hakeem), and as mentioned earlier, those were the dark ages of the league where drugs over took the league. Not to mention ABA taking away legitimate talent away from the league. If anything, it was an aberration in the history of the league. On top of that, there was legitimate reasons for the Bucks/Lakers missing the playoffs those two years.

In 74, KAJ missed 16 games due to injuries. Kareem missed the first 16 games of the season, and the Bucks finished 3-13 in those games. Taking those games away, the Bucks were on a 44-game win season pace, enough to leap-frog Detroit and Sonics for a tied for 2nd place finish with the Kings that season.

The following season, KAJ was traded to the Lakers who essentially missed the playoffs because of the whacked out division system back in the day. They actually finished with the 4th best record in the West that year, but lost out because they were also the fourth best in their division. Lesser teams in the Bucks and Pistons actually made the playoffs because of the whacky seeding format, and the Lakers still finished 4 out of the 9 teams (top half).

Again limited time, but my point about best player is diffrent when the teams have 2 HOF stars. MAgic and Kareem bothe get credit for the title in 1980. Kareem (like Shaq) was clearly the best player in 1980 but no way they win without heavy contributions from Magic. And the story is teh same for Shaquille. A great as player as Shaq was he does not win 4 rings without outstanding performances from Kobe & Wade. I have no problems agreeing with you that Duncan was a bigger part of his 4 than Kobe was for most of his 5. But when you rank palyers all-time, the regular seasons, matter even the Finals losses matter ...which detract (slightly) from Kobe. But look amb we have done this dance before. Like i said both are not done and I reserve the right to change my stance again. if duncan were to lead the Spurs over a prime Lebron that matters to me a great deal. At the time I nudged Kobe over Duncan was back after the 08-10 seasons when though duncan never missed teh playoffs his game had slipped. This year he looks like the best center and if he leads his team even to a Finals loss to the HEat it definitely helps open up that debate for me. Right now I still lean Kobe but I have maintained it was close. I thought Kobe had moved clearly ahead as Duncan declined but this year duncan is moving back to a closer race. When they are both done we can have a great debate about it. I consider them two of the 10 best players I have ever seen there is no shame in having healthy debate on two great players.

[Cry Havoc]

Damn Lawson...last thing we need is Kobe pissed off...Shut...The fuck...Up.

:lmao

That's the best thing right now. Kobe pissed off would be hilarious with his team right now. He'd score 60 a night and they'd lose by an average of 30 points.

[ambchang]

Again limited time, but my point about best player is diffrent when the teams have 2 HOF stars. MAgic and Kareem bothe get credit for the title in 1980. Kareem (like Shaq) was clearly the best player in 1980 but no way they win without heavy contributions from Magic. And the story is teh same for Shaquille. A great as player as Shaq was he does not win 4 rings without outstanding performances from Kobe & Wade. I have no problems agreeing with you that Duncan was a bigger part of his 4 than Kobe was for most of his 5. But when you rank palyers all-time, the regular seasons, matter even the Finals losses matter ...which detract (slightly) from Kobe. But look amb we have done this dance before. Like i said both are not done and I reserve the right to change my stance again. if duncan were to lead the Spurs over a prime Lebron that matters to me a great deal. At the time I nudged Kobe over Duncan was back after the 08-10 seasons when though duncan never missed teh playoffs his game had slipped. This year he looks like the best center and if he leads his team even to a Finals loss to the HEat it definitely helps open up that debate for me. Right now I still lean Kobe but I have maintained it was close. I thought Kobe had moved clearly ahead as Duncan declined but this year duncan is moving back to a closer race. When they are both done we can have a great debate about it. I consider them two of the 10 best players I have ever seen there is no shame in having healthy debate on two great players.

Of course Shaq doesn't win four with Kobe and Wade, he won't win four without Phil Jackson, Horry, Fisher and Haslem either. Which brings us back to the point of teams winning championships, not individuals, and it supports my point rather than yours.

Your concept of saying Kobe's part in the 5 is less than Duncan's part in 4, and yet Kobe > Duncan because he has one more ring is confusing and contradictory. It may work for you, but I doubt anybody else who is objective will have any way of grasping your logic.

Sure, Kobe has longevity part locked up. There has simply been no SG in the history of the league who has that level of longevity in the history of the league, but then we don't judge individual greatness based on longevity alone, just as Karl Malone will never be the greatest PF because he had 18 excellent seasons plus a few very good ones.

Duncan, to me, is a borderline top 10, somewhere around 8 to 12, and the line is murky there. Kobe, to be, is at best 12 to 15. If you put him in the top 10, he will be, by far, the most flawed top 10 player of the list.

[Cry Havoc]

Duncan, to me, is a borderline top 10, somewhere around 8 to 12, and the line is murky there. Kobe, to be, is at best 12 to 15. If you put him in the top 10, he will be, by far, the most flawed top 10 player of the list.

I have Duncan at #7 or #6, depending on where I decide to put Bill Russell. I don't see how you could put Tim lower than #9 at this point in his career.

[ambchang]

I have Duncan at #7 or #6, depending on where I decide to put Bill Russell. I don't see how you could put Tim lower than #9 at this point in his career.

To be quite honest, I haven't really given much though in terms of ranking the players, but off the cuff, and this is not with much analysis or deep thought, I would rank the players below as definitely > Duncan:
Magic
Kareem
Jordan
Bird
Wilt
Russell

Players likely > Duncan:
Hakeem
Moses Malone

Players equal to Duncan:
Shaq
Oscar Robertson

Players equal to or slightly < Duncan:
Dr. J.
Jerry West

Players who are likely to surpass Duncan:
Lebron James

So I guess you are right, he is ranked somewhere between 6 to 10 in my books.

[Cry Havoc]

Players likely > Duncan:
Hakeem
Moses Malone

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 title was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

[pad300]

KillaKobe, the biggest flaw in your argument is the suggestion that Kobe has been the best player on a ring winning team. Highest scorer, sure, but there is more to the game than just scoring. He's never led any of the Lakers Championship teams in WS/48, or WS over the season, nor WP/48 and WP. Finally, if you look at PER, the 1st Pau Gasol ring, Kobe took the PER crown that year. None of these are perfect measurements of course - for example, they don't reflect defense at all well - but it's difficult to argue that he's been the best player on any of those teams. Gasol may not have been loud and showboaty, but neither is TD.
Realistically, Kobe's never accomplished anything significant without the best set of bigs in the league in front of him (Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Shaq, Horry, Horace Grant).

[Riddler]

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 title was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

Hakeem had less around him in the first championship run. I don't see how he isn't considered by some here to be clearly better.

[Killakobe81]

KillaKobe, the biggest flaw in your argument is the suggestion that Kobe has been the best player on a ring winning team. Highest scorer, sure, but there is more to the game than just scoring. He's never led any of the Lakers Championship teams in WS/48, or WS over the season, nor WP/48 and WP. Finally, if you look at PER, the 1st Pau Gasol ring, Kobe took the PER crown that year. None of these are perfect measurements of course - for example, they don't reflect defense at all well - but it's difficult to argue that he's been the best player on any of those teams. Gasol may not have been loud and showboaty, but neither is TD.
Realistically, Kobe's never accomplished anything significant without the best set of bigs in the league in front of him (Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Shaq, Horry, Horace Grant).

A couple of things:

1. You will never win an argument with me on stats ... And for the record I don't throw around Kobe's scoring either ... if you think you will convince me by posting win shares when there are other stats I could use that clearly favor Kobe over Pau ... that is a losing battle. In fact anyone that thinks Pau was more critical to the 09 and 2010 titles pretty much doesnt know ball and I read your posts as a smh with amusement. I think stats just paint a picture but dont tell the whole story ...

2. I love rings above all ... but Role players like Horry, Kerr, Salley even Rodman etc get less credit than Magic, Kareem, Shaq Lebron etc.

3. I dont rank players retired before 1980. I love how dudes that are 30 are ranking players like Russell and Oscar ... Especially advanced metric dudes. League rules, predominantly white NBA etc. Makes judging those guys tricky ...and since I never saw them play I don't rank them. Read my post I said BEST I HAD EVER SEEN. I BARELY CAUGHT THE TAIL end of Kareem so my top 10 excludes cats that retired before 1980.

4. My Personal top 10 No order top of dome; MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Isiah ....

5. I know yall love Shaq but how in the world is he not more flawed as a top 10 player than any on this list? LOL. Not a great option in the last two minutes, poor FT shooter, horrible pnr defender, just as big an ego as Kobe or Lebron. He has been traded more than any player sniffing the top 10, has ALSO missed a playoffs and have been swept out of it more than probably any of the other players combined. Dont get me wrong at his best in 2000 he rivals the best of ANY of those 10 (including MJ) but to argue Kobe is the most flawed of any top 10 (as a player) is bull.

6. I dont factor things we cant track like leadership. Again I think Duncan APPEARS to be a great one. I also think he is someone ...many of us would prefer to play with based on demeanor etc. But I dont factor those types of intangibles ...if I did then I could make a strong case for Magic over MJ or Lebron over Kareem who were also by many accounts shitty team-mates ...

7. I know Kobe shoots too much and is overrated defensively and the fact he can still play good defense from time to time is a worse indictment because he rarely does ... But because you dont LIKE a player is no reason to discredit his career. I just like to keep people accountable because they criticize Kobe or Lebron for things that they let slide on players they do like. In my youth I hated Bird, I did not even care much for MJ, Malone or Isiah. But those were kiddie feelings. Now that I am a man I occasionally will dislike the antics of a player like KG or Pierce but I respect their game. Including many of those same player I despised in my top 10 and the rest just outside (KG, Malone Pierce)

I will not debate Kobe vs. duncan until they both are retired, but I am paying attention to who can have a level-headed debate on the subject ... the list is quite small.

[thunderfan]

The second you think another NBA team is "easy work" is the second you're setting yourself up for failure. Only morons run their mouth like that.

[ambchang]

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 title was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

That's why I had them as likely > Duncan. Hakeem got up there because of his amazing 94 95 runs, those runs were better than any runs Duncan ever had (except may be 03), and was just absolutely monstrous. On the other hand, he had that late 80's issue where he was a giant jerk and was labelled as a cancer on the Rockets. That said, I believe Duncan is easier to build around because of the way he plays the game, Hakeem was more dominant, and much better one on one player.

As for Malone, you should have seen him during his prime. He is, along with David Robinson, one of the most underrated players of all time. The way he man-handled Kareem during their face to face was phenomenal. Sure, he couldn't pass, talk properly, or defend very well, but there was not another more terrorizing player in the paint that Moses Malone in his prime.

At the end of the day, I can see why people will rank Duncan on the same level as those two players, or even a little above, but to me, Duncan comes slightly after them.

[ambchang]

A couple of things:

1. You will never win an argument with me on stats ... And for the record I don't throw around Kobe's scoring either ... if you think you will convince me by posting win shares when there are other stats I could use that clearly favor Kobe over Pau ... that is a losing battle. In fact anyone that thinks Pau was more critical to the 09 and 2010 titles pretty much doesnt know ball and I read your posts as a smh with amusement. I think stats just paint a picture but dont tell the whole story ...

You just did, 5>4 is a stat.


2. I love rings above all ... but Role players like Horry, Kerr, Salley even Rodman etc get less credit than Magic, Kareem, Shaq Lebron etc. So there are two kinds of players in the NBA, stars and role players (well, maybe three, useless ones like Mengke Bateer or Adam Morrison). The issue is that Kobe was clearly the lesser of the two during the 00-02 runs, and yet you somehow equate his contributions to those of Shaq just to bolster your claims that Kobe > Duncan. It's almost like you had the rankings in mind and then just randomly came up with some criteria to justify your rankings.


3. I dont rank players retired before 1980. I love how dudes that are 30 are ranking players like Russell and Oscar ... Especially advanced metric dudes. League rules, predominantly white NBA etc. Makes judging those guys tricky ...and since I never saw them play I don't rank them. Read my post I said BEST I HAD EVER SEEN. I BARELY CAUGHT THE TAIL end of Kareem so my top 10 excludes cats that retired before 1980.

4. My Personal top 10 No order top of dome; MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Isiah ....

5. I know yall love Shaq but how in the world is he not more flawed as a top 10 player than any on this list? LOL. Not a great option in the last two minutes, poor FT shooter, horrible pnr defender, just as big an ego as Kobe or Lebron. He has been traded more than any player sniffing the top 10, has ALSO missed a playoffs and have been swept out of it more than probably any of the other players combined. Dont get me wrong at his best in 2000 he rivals the best of ANY of those 10 (including MJ) but to argue Kobe is the most flawed of any top 10 (as a player) is bull.

Shaq's issue in the last two minutes is flawed. He was ranked top 10 in clutch scores in 02 or 03, when the stat was tracked. You foul Shaq in the last few minutes, and he has a 50% chance at making each FT, that is better than Kobe's career FG%. He missed the playoffs as a rookie, which was out of his prime.

Kobe, in 16 years, never learned to play with his teammates. In basketball, not being able to play team ball is about as flawed as you can get.


6. I dont factor things we cant track like leadership. Again I think Duncan APPEARS to be a great one. I also think he is someone ...many of us would prefer to play with based on demeanor etc. But I dont factor those types of intangibles ...if I did then I could make a strong case for Magic over MJ or Lebron over Kareem who were also by many accounts shitty team-mates ...

7. I know Kobe shoots too much and is overrated defensively and the fact he can still play good defense from time to time is a worse indictment because he rarely does ... But because you dont LIKE a player is no reason to discredit his career. I just like to keep people accountable because they criticize Kobe or Lebron for things that they let slide on players they do like. In my youth I hated Bird, I did not even care much for MJ, Malone or Isiah. But those were kiddie feelings. Now that I am a man I occasionally will dislike the antics of a player like KG or Pierce but I respect their game. Including many of those same player I despised in my top 10 and the rest just outside (KG, Malone Pierce)

I will not debate Kobe vs. duncan until they both are retired, but I am paying attention to who can have a level-headed debate on the subject ... the list is quite small.

Not sure where you get the idea that I am discrediting Kobe because I dislike him. I don't really dislike him, and like I said over and over and over again, he would have been a fantastic Spur if he is willing to play second fiddle to Duncan. The issue with him is that he doesn't know his own limitations, and refuse to play accordingly. He is also overrated as hell as he requires the most dominant frontline every season for his team to be successful. And in 04 and this year so far, his teams have under achieved due to his selfish play.

Just logically speaking, Kobe and Shaq are both in your top 10, and yet they won 3 championships together. Over the same span, Duncan, the lone top 10 in your list won 2. Sort of tells you which of three is better, even using your own criteria.

[Killakobe81]

You just did, 5>4 is a stat.

So there are two kinds of players in the NBA, stars and role players (well, maybe three, useless ones like Mengke Bateer or Adam Morrison). The issue is that Kobe was clearly the lesser of the two during the 00-02 runs, and yet you somehow equate his contributions to those of Shaq just to bolster your claims that Kobe > Duncan. It's almost like you had the rankings in mind and then just randomly came up with some criteria to justify your rankings.



Shaq's issue in the last two minutes is flawed. He was ranked top 10 in clutch scores in 02 or 03, when the stat was tracked. You foul Shaq in the last few minutes, and he has a 50% chance at making each FT, that is better than Kobe's career FG%. He missed the playoffs as a rookie, which was out of his prime.

Kobe, in 16 years, never learned to play with his teammates. In basketball, not being able to play team ball is about as flawed as you can get.



Not sure where you get the idea that I am discrediting Kobe because I dislike him. I don't really dislike him, and like I said over and over and over again, he would have been a fantastic Spur if he is willing to play second fiddle to Duncan. The issue with him is that he doesn't know his own limitations, and refuse to play accordingly. He is also overrated as hell as he requires the most dominant frontline every season for his team to be successful. And in 04 and this year so far, his teams have under achieved due to his selfish play.

Just logically speaking, Kobe and Shaq are both in your top 10, and yet they won 3 championships together. Over the same span, Duncan, the lone top 10 in your list won 2. Sort of tells you which of three is better, even using your own criteria.

You make some great points. And as I said earlier my top 10 is very fluid. Lebron is currently at or near the bottom of that list but I have a sneaky suspicion that he willbe closer to #1 than number 10 when all is said and done. I dont care about his stats ... he just has so much talent and I dont even know if he has fulfilled all of it. If let's say Lebron wins 3 rings with his two final appearances and incredible seasons ...I would put Lebron over Kobe and Duncan because to me if the players are close the rings would be the decidor. But I dont know if it will be close ... Lebron to me is that good, but who knows how well his game will age?

The thing is MY PERSONAL list doesnt have to be scientific or follow YOUR or anyone elses's logic. You may think it's flawed and that is fine. When everyone on that list is retired I will rank them, heck when Kobe and duncan finish I will slot them pending Lebron's career. For ME they are close many feel duncan is superior and plenty feel Kobe is ... that is why it is a good debate. We agree to disagree for now ...


BTW they you go with stats rings are not stats they are results. I watched Shaq pllay since college and saw every game of his minus 5 or 6 a seson for his whole Laker career. The leader you wish to credit was swept out of the playoffs repeatedly and would hide from teh ball on occasion in the clutch due to his poor FT shooting playiong hot potato ... no stat you can pull out of your ass is going to make me forget those moments.

[Koolaid_Man]

That's why I had them as likely > Duncan. Hakeem got up there because of his amazing 94 95 runs, those runs were better than any runs Duncan ever had (except may be 03), and was just absolutely monstrous. On the other hand, he had that late 80's issue where he was a giant jerk and was labelled as a cancer on the Rockets. That said, I believe Duncan is easier to build around because of the way he plays the game, Hakeem was more dominant, and much better one on one player.

As for Malone, you should have seen him during his prime. He is, along with David Robinson, one of the most underrated players of all time. The way he man-handled Kareem during their face to face was phenomenal. Sure, he couldn't pass, talk properly, or defend very well, but there was not another more terrorizing player in the paint that Moses Malone in his prime.

At the end of the day, I can see why people will rank Duncan on the same level as those two players, or even a little above, but to me, Duncan comes slightly after them.

you can do a million back flips, walk the great wall of China 100 times, jump out a plane with no parachute and be unharmed, scale the Empire State Building like Spider man....you could fucking swear you are straight..none of that shit will change my mind nor the fact that it's

Kobe 5
TOSB 4

Live With That Shit Homie :hat Live With It

[rayjayjohnson]

The second you think another NBA team is "easy work" is the second you're setting yourself up for failure. Only morons run their mouth like that.
Thunderfan talking about running mouths. Oh the irony.

[ambchang]

Surprised it took this long for Koolaid Man to do a Giuseppe/Cully impersonation.

You are similar to Kobe in many ways, unoriginal, no idea of your own limitations, just that Kobe is better than anything you do by a factor of infinite.

[Brazil]

underrated thread, there are some good debates and points in there

[lefty]

Bump :lol

Yeah Lawson lost to the Warriors tonight


But still :lol

[Michael Jordan.]

:lol My nigga Ty doe

[Rogue]

It's always easy work when you don't give your opponents enough oxygen to breathe.

[lefty]

It's always easy work when you don't give your opponents enough oxygen to breathe.
That's what Kobe thought in 2003

[ElNono]

Ty with the connoisseur goods, tbh

[AchillesHeel]

:lol