BSPN: Ranking The Top 25 NBA Players Of The 21st Century

[TD 21]

I don't love Curry at all, I just don't irrationally hate him like you do.

Curry - 4 rings as the most impactuful player on his team (statistically proven)

Kobe- 1.5 as the top dog.

Anything else is subjective bull .

Then apply the same standards you did to Bryant to him. I don't "irrationally hate him", I hate how he's portrayed because of his telegenic style of play and non threatening appearance.

Two rings where Durant won Finals MVP (the same criteria utilized with O'Neal), that he receives next to no credit for, but Golden Boy, the king of starting on the two-yard line, somehow does.

It's not subjective; the unprecedented opponent injury luck is fact. If you didn't have to face or beat anyone at full strength capable of beating you, it clearly denigrates the accomplishment.

Why else would people constantly reference Jordan overcoming the Pistons? Or Spurs fans do so with '03 Duncan? Or James beating the '16 Warriors? Etc.

[ambchang]

Lebron duncan and shaq is 1-2-3 for me, in that order. I can understand if people move them around one way or another, but anything else is hard to justify.

[DAF86]

Then apply the same standards you did to Bryant to him. I don't "irrationally hate him", I hate how he's portrayed because of his telegenic style of play and non threatening appearance.

Two rings where Durant won Finals MVP (the same criteria utilized with O'Neal), that he receives next to no credit for, but Golden Boy, the king of starting on the two-yard line, somehow does.

Why do you lie? I clearly stated that Curry was the #1 guy on the Warriors because metrics showed he was. The same happens with Shaq and Kobe. I don't care about finals MVPs. Wade in 06, Tony in 07, Kawhi in 14, Iggy in 15, Brown now. Many example of finals MVPs that weren't the #1 guy during the season. Throw Durbeta in there too.

It's not subjective; the unprecedented opponent injury luck is fact. If you didn't have to face or beat anyone at full strength capable of beating you, it clearly denigrates the accomplishment.

Why else would people constantly reference Jordan overcoming the Pistons? Or Spurs fans do so with '03 Duncan? Or James beating the '16 Warriors? Etc.

Injuries happen every season, how much importance you place on those is entirely subjective. I remember once Bill Simmons saying the 2005 Spurs were the worst Champions of his lifetime because Joe Johnson and Leandro Barbosa missed games against us and, according to him, the best team of that season, the Pacers, had all its stars suspended. That's how mind numbing dumb arguments can get when you start getting your bias in the way.

[TD 21]

Why do you lie? I clearly stated that Curry was the #1 guy on the Warriors because metrics showed he was. The same happens with Shaq and Kobe. I don't care about finals MVPs. Wade in 06, Tony in 07, Kawhi in 14, Iggy in 15, Brown now. Many example of finals MVPs that weren't the #1 guy during the season. Throw Durbeta in there too.



Injuries happen every season, how much importance you place on those is entirely subjective. I remember once Bill Simmons saying the 2005 Spurs were the worst Champions of his lifetime because Joe Johnson and Leandro Barbosa missed games against us and, according to him, the best team of that season, the Pacers, had all its stars suspended. That's how mind numbing dumb arguments can get when you start getting your bias in the way.

It doesn't really matter whether you said the part about O'Neal or not because either way there's this:

Duncan has more MVP's, more finals MVP's, more rings as the best player on his team.

Finals MVP's suddenly mattered when used to denigrate Bryant.

Again, why are you pretending there was a gulf either way? Even if you want to argue he was slightly better (nonsense considering Durant's superior size gives him access to so many more secondary skills, like ISO scoring, which Kerr himself admitted was the impetus for recruiting him), he wasn't the clear lead dog which is really the crux of the matter.

Apparently you don't know what the word unprecedented means. That's the difference between him and the others. The '05 Spurs still had to face the Suns big 3 and the Pistons at full strength with Duncan on two sprained ankles. Far more difficult than anything the Warriors did in any of their runs.

Again, I can't stand Bryant, Durant and Curry . . . you only can't stand two, but I'm the one who is biased? Give your head a shake.

[DAF86]

It doesn't really matter whether you said the part about O'Neal or not because either way there's this:



Finals MVP's suddenly mattered when used to denigrate Bryant.

Again, why are you pretending there was a gulf either way? Even if you want to argue he was slightly better (nonsense considering Durant's superior size gives him access to so many more secondary skills, like ISO scoring, which Kerr himself admitted was the impetus for recruiting him), he wasn't the clear lead dog which is really the crux of the matter.

Apparently you don't know what the word unprecedented means. That's the difference between him and the others. The '05 Spurs still had to face the Suns big 3 and the Pistons at full strength with Duncan on two sprained ankles. Far more difficult than anything the Warriors did in any of their runs.

Again, I can't stand Bryant, Durant and Curry . . . you only can't stand two, but I'm the one who is biased? Give your head a shake.

I don't hate Durant, tbh. It's the same as Curry for me, I don't hate them, but I don't particularly care for them either. I just realize that Durant was a big enough to join a team that had won 73 games and had knocked him out on the previous season. So, sorry if I don't think that guy can claim to be the most important player in those Warriors, specially since metrics indeed indicate he wasn't.

Regarding the Duncan comparisson, it was made like that just because it was easier than to explain it the other way. The real reason why Duncan >> Kobe, is because Timmy won 4 (in the 21st century) as the best guy on his team, and Kobe only 2. Finals MVPs be damned.

And the whole injuries argument is just tiring at this point. I already told you what I think about that, you won't make change my mind, and you won't change yours. At the end of the day, what happened is what happened, and Curry won 4 rings as the most impactful player of his team. Something only the elitest of the elite have managed to do, and Kobe isn't on that level.

[TD 21]

I don't hate Durant, tbh. It's the same as Curry for me, I don't hate them, but I don't particularly care for them either. I just realize that Durant was a big enough to join a team that had won 73 games and had knocked him out on the previous season. So, sorry if I don't think that guy can claim to be the most important player in those Warriors, specially since metrics indeed indicate he wasn't.

Regarding the Duncan comparisson, it was made like that just because it was easier than to explain it the other way. The real reason why Duncan >> Kobe, is because Timmy won 4 (in the 21st century) as the best guy on his team, and Kobe only 2. Finals MVPs be damned.

And the whole injuries argument is just tiring at this point. I already told you what I think about that, you won't make change my mind, and you won't change yours. At the end of the day, what happened is what happened, and Curry won 4 rings as the most impactful player of his team. Something only the elitest of the elite have managed to do, and Kobe isn't on that level.

Agreed and Golden Boy was a big enough to recruit him so he could dismantle what probably would have been his stiffest compe ion throughout his prime and start on the two-yard line.

But who cares? Apparently neither that nor having to beat anyone worthwhile due to injuries is no different than the other all-time greats championships. That makes a lot of sense.

This is no different than people saying, despite strong on/off numbers, player X doesn't impact winning because his team has a poor record or despite a wide gulf in advanced metrics and malleability, player Y is no better than player X because of comparable counting stats.

[Brazil]

Kobe is the most overrated player ever, tbh.

yep, his death is helping his legacy for sure

[spurraider21]

OP soft as always, being offended by some ESPN throws out

[TD 21]

OP soft as always, being offended by some ESPN throws out

Yeah, if I'm debating it (which is the whole point of these lists) then it must mean I'm offended by it.

You're just mad because you're another clown who loves to gargle Golden Boy's .

[Barfunk]

ESPN could've really marketed the Spurs as the New England Patriots of the NBA when they were chipping/perennial contenders, but they weren't having any of that. The disrespect and it not being cool to **TAKE** Tim Duncan above guys like Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Chris Webber, Hakeem, Lebron, etc is the result of that.

[Barfunk]

I gotta give credit where it's due though, I've seen people like Stephen A. Smith give more and more props to the Spurs/Tim/Tony/Manu/Pop as the years go by, so that's good at least.