Reply With Quote
Forgot about that one (Horry vs. detroit) but that tied the game right? It did not win it IIRC ... Fish was great it even prompted a rule change ...but Horry's did what Fish's did tired a series but Horry's shots vs. SAC and Detroit led to les ...
If we're just looking at the actual shot and the cir stances, it has to be Fisher's..no question..
Horry's shot vs. Detroit was one of the best ever, but what made it so great was the performance as a whole..
Forgot about that one (Horry vs. detroit) but that tied the game right? It did not win it IIRC ... Fish was great it even prompted a rule change ...but Horry's did what Fish's did tired a series but Horry's shots vs. SAC and Detroit led to les ...
Ya, Horry's shot did win the game..it wasn't at the buzzer though..
Lets not forget that Duncan and the Spurs got bounced in the first round last year. To make matters worse it was to a lower seed.
I don't know, Darrin, why would you?It's an NBA discussion board. Why would I come to a Spurs site as a Pistons fan to target the Suns posters?
Looking all these moments, I must say it has been a great decade of NBA basketball.
I know either Horry or Fisher will get it, but what about TD's 3? It blew me away that he took, and made, that shot.
Agreed. And it's like having a precious, hidden gem because the entire country is sold on the fact that the 1980s and 1990s were better and are stuck in the conversations of last decade still.
Nope. Duncan, Game 6 2003 Finals. He was within 2 blocks of a QUAD double in the mother ing FINALS.
Uh, are you forgetting Mutombo, the best shot blocker in history? Oh, and that was pre-micro-fracture KMart, a pretty fair defender.
To be honest, it didn't matter who you put on Duncan during those B2B MVP seasons.
True. And I don't give a f*** about the players he faced there (the names where mentioned earlier in the thread). In the finals you don't play against scrubs, period!
I have to admit though that LBJ's performance against Detroit was quite nice.
Just a side note: Mutombo as the best shot blocker in history? Well, he was awesome there, absolutely no doubt about that! Just great! But I have to admit, my favourite concerning the best shot blockers is not a HoF (and likely never will be), but these videos are just awesome:
Welcome to the block party
Manute Bol Mix
Best statline ever
Blocked Skyhook
About the latter one: I know that's really debateable if it's goaltending or not. IMO, it's on the edge and I don't want to judge it. As you all know, for goaltending the ball has to be on its way down. The refs didn't call it (I assume). But nevertheless, if you are 7'7 and you have a 10 ft wingspan, you can block almost everything including the skyhook.
Nice articles as well:
Sports Illustrated
Philly about Bol
NBA about Bol after retirement
Btw, he has by far the best block pct ever...
Career
Single season
Sorry for that insertion
He played 10 minutes in that game.
The exception being the 1999-2003 Eastern conference. Are you saying Jason Collins isn't a scrub?
Apparently it did matter against the Lakers in 2002.
99% of NBA players can't get close to a quad-double against scrubs let alone elites. The defenders do not diminish Duncan's performance. Most big men would struggle to get 20 points and 20 boards, let alone toss in double digit assists and more than a couple blocks.
The 2009 Lakers team was probably one of the most loaded teams in the last decade or so if you take away the top player (as in only counting the supporting cast).
00-02 Lakers – Kobe and role players. The 3rd best player on those teams was probably Robert Horry or Derek Fisher.
03 Spurs – Very balanced team, but really role players, stars past their primes (Robinson, Willis), or players not hitting their primes (Ginobili, Parker).
04 Pistons – No one superstar, but an extremely balanced team that is filled with talent throughout.
05 Spurs – Parker was most definitely not a bonafide star, that was Ginobili. Parker was still inconsistent and prone to mistake. Ginobili was fantastic though. His role was comparable to Gasol of the 09 Lakers, but then the 09 Lakers had Odom, Bynum (who sucked in the Finals) and Ariza.
06 Heat – Shaq and a bunch of scrubs.
07 Spurs – Parker was shining, Ginobili was still good. Bowen was amazing. This is probably comparable to 09 Lakers in terms of supporting cast. But then again, Duncan, though still effective, was past his prime by that point.
08 Celtics – Loaded throughout, Garnett, Allen and Rondo was most definitely better than the 09 supporting cast. But then, nobody is putting Pierce in as the best player of the decade.
09 Lakers – Gasol was a top 3 center, Bynum, though he sucked, offered another low post option for the Lakers. Odom, as inconsistent as he was throughout his career, was a versatile PF who causes mismatches for all the teams. This is a monstrous frontline, no team in the league that year, or in the last 10 years, can really put out three productive big men on the court at the same time who could play together. Ariza was fantastic, and as his season with the Rockets showed so far, he has talent (though his huge drop in FG% is pretty much expected). This was a loaded team like the 04 Pistons, a great starting five that is balanced throughout.
Funny thing is, I love the Kobe. I appreciate the way he plays, but the fact is, he never achieved the level of dominance that Shaq and Duncan did at their primes, nor has he kept it for as long. I am sure Kobe would be a great player in the next couple of years to keep his dominance to at least the same length as Shaq, or even Duncan, but it is unlikely he would ever hit as high a peak as those two did.
Manu didn’t carry that 05 team, he was instrumental. His role in that 05 team was what Kobe was from 00 to 02. Extremely good, probably one of the best in the league, but clearly a 2nd banana to Duncan. Same with Parker, yes he won the MVP, but there was no question that the offense and defense revolved around Duncan in those two years, just like the 00-02 Lakers teams revolved around Shaq. Kobe didn’t do as much as Shaq did in 01 and 02, he was a sidekick, like Pippen was a sidekick to Jordan, or McHale was a sidekick to Bird. The whole Lakers system was built around Shaq those years, and there wasn’t really any questions about it. Kobe was great, but you can’t argue Kobe was a better player than Shaq throughout the decade when a huge chunk of his accomplishments were being a sidekick to Shaq. If Pippen led a team to a championship and won an MVP without Jordan, he still wouldn’t be better than Jordan, if McHale won a championship and won an MVP without Bird, he still wouldn’t be better than Bird. If Ginobili won a championship and won an MVP without Duncan, he still wouldn’t be better than Duncan. If Parker won a championship and won an MVP without Duncan, he still wouldn’t be better than Duncan.
You can’t say a player is better because he is smaller. There is no handicap. The way basketball is, it’s easier for big men to dominate, and that is just the way it is. It may be more impressive, and certainly rare for guards and forwards to dominate, but it doesn’t make those players better.
By that logic, Nate Archibald should be in the best player ever debate, because he’s barely 6 ft tall and led the league in scoring and assists.
Kobe was a sidekick in 01-03, there wasn’t really any questions about it. He wasn’t even the best player on his team those three seasons. In 04, with him “leading” his team, the Lakers received a royal buttkicking by the Pistons, despite the fact that the 04 team was loaded.
05 to 07, the Lakers didn’t do that well, and most of that was because the supporting cast was horrible. However, you can’t dismiss the Game 7 where Kobe was passing up shots to send a message. Great players don’t do that, great players don’t allow their games to lose just to show who’s boss. In fact, from 05 to 07, Kobe wasn’t even all that close in MVP voting. He finished 3rd in 07 voting, but only received 2 out of 129 votes, in 06, he got 22 out of 129 votes, finishing 4th, in 05, he didn’t even finish in the top 15 (less votes than PJ Brown? WTH?). In fact, in the last ten years, Kobe Bryant was only a legitimate MVP candidate twice, maybe thrice.
I absolutely do not get how LeBron being the best player now would equate to Kobe being the best from 01 to 07. The only reason people started arguing Kobe as the top player in the last decade was BECAUSE of 08 (MVP), and 09 (championship), 01 to 07 was dominated by Duncan and Shaq.
Last edited by ambchang; 11-20-2009 at 11:00 AM.
Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Trevor Ariza, injured Andrew Bynum
versus
Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry
I'd take the Spurs supporting cast. Horry, Bowen, and Barry all shot over 42% from three-point range in the 2005 playoffs, collectively (95-for-218) 43.6%. If you're going to pimp Ariza for playing fantastic, then you qualify the Spurs three point shooters in 2005 as maybe the best three point shooting NBA champs in the history of the NBA playoffs. Manu shot 44% from three point range for the playoffs as well. Four rotation guys taking a lot of three pointers and all shooting over 42% from long distance? You want to talk about loaded?
Tiny Archibald led the league in scoring and assists for ONE SEASON. If he kept that type of scoring and assists throughout his career and was responsible for multiple championships, he would be in the discussion for greatest players ever. He was more of a 19 ppg / 8 apg guy the rest of his career. And, the one championship he won, he was the fifth best player on his team. You're really going to argue that? Kobe has dominated the league for around a decade or more. Not just one season. Multiple champion, perennial all star, all NBA performer, all NBA defender, league MVP, and Finals MVP. And, your argument is about Tiny Archibald's one great season???
We're comparing greats like Tim and Kobe who are multiple le winners and guys that have done it their whole careers. The fact that Kobe dominates at his size is something you should take into consideration. Because it's not done often. And, there's absolutely an argument that his peak is greater because of that.
Magic was a sidekick to Kareem in the early 80s and it didn't prevent him from being viewed as the best or one of the best players in the league. Only people who want to minimize Kobe's greatness tag him with a "sidekick" label. Kobe often led that team more so than Shaq. Shaq was absolutely great and dominant. But, after the 1999-2000 season, that Laker squad was as much Kobe's as it was Shaq's. Kobe often led in field goal attempts. He would be the one who would facilitate the offense late in games. He was the closer. I go back to Kareem and Magic. Kareem was the leading scorer on the Lakers for Magic's first 7 seasons there. But, that was still Magic's team. Kareem was the superstar and legend, and Magic was the young phenom. But, there was no mistaking who led that team. Same thing with Kobe and Shaq. Kobe haters refuse to accept or acknowledge that.
What is this talk about MVP voting??? I don't care how great a player is, you don't get MVP votes unless your team is a top 5 team in the league. You just don't. For Kobe to get any votes from 2005-07 shows how great a player he is. Get out of here with that mess. In 2004-05, the Lakers went into the lottery. No player from a lottery team is going to get MVP votes, genius.
From 2001-09, here is where Kobe finished in MVP voting: 9th, 5th, 3rd, 5th, n/a, 4th, 3rd, won MVP, 2nd
And here are Tim's finishes in MVP voting: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 4th, 7th, 11th
Pretty comparable. Tim averages a 4.44th place finish. Kobe averages a 4th place finish, although that doesn't include 2004-05 where he didn't finish in the top 15 at all.
You see, Kobe had one season where the Lakers traded Shaq and they had transition that brings him down in the evaluation. Everything else is very compe ive between him and Duncan. In fact, we can even look at their playoff performances since and including the 2001 playoffs.
Tim Duncan:
23.5 ppg
13.0 rpg
3.7 apg
2.63 bpg
49.9% FG
Kobe Bryant:
28.7 ppg
5.2 apg
5.8 rpg
1.68 spg
45.6% FG
Both outstanding stats for each. Like I said, it's a toss-up.
But, here's where you might be surprised about each helping his team to win.
Duncan-led Spurs' record in the playoffs from 2001 to present: 82-52 (61.2% winning precentage)
Kobe-led Lakers' record in the playoffs from 2001 to present: 83-42 (66.4% winning percentage)
Kobe's Lakers actually do better in the playoffs than Duncan's Spurs overall.
LeBron being the best player does not equate to Kobe being the best player from 2001-07. I merely mentioned LeBron to bring a cut off date to when Kobe had been surpassed as the best player in the league. In 2000-01, Kobe averaged 28.5 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 5.0 apg. He was already dominating the league at that point. You want to call him a sidekick, what other sidekick was averaging 28/5/5?
You missed a whole lot of NBA basketball this decade if you think Kobe is being mentioned as one of the decade's best players only because of the 2008 MVP and last year's championship.
Wow, so Ariza production = 3 Spurs players. I don’t know about you, but that is saying Ariza, by himself was as good as 3 Spurs players. If that doesn’t spell how the Lakers bench was clearly better, I don’t know what does. In other words, if you put Ariza, Gasol, Odom and Fisher on the floor, and the Spurs put Parker, Ginobili, and 2 of Horry, Bowen and Barry on the floor, you have Gasol = Ginobili, Odom = Parker, Ariza = 1.5 x 2 of Horry/Bowen/Barry, and the Lakers still have one up with the Fisher production. So net, you have 50% improvement of a Horry/Bowen/Barry + a Fisher, seems like a pretty clear win on the Lakers front.
In all seriousness though, the 05 team was positively the best supporting cast Duncan ever had, but then Duncan also won with an underwhelming (at least on paper) 03 team and an 07 team. Kobe’s absolute best is about the worst of Duncan’s prime with two bum ankles.
I wasn’t going to argue that, you were. Archibald was small, he should be given a handicap. Even better, Mugsy Bogues was even smaller, let’s go for Spud Webb and Earl Watson too. They were small.
If you don’t agree with this, then you don’t agree with how Kobe should be considered more dominant because he was small. I don’t care how small he was, if he was dominating at 6’6”, he was dominating at 6’6”, it wouldn’t make him better if he was 6’5”, or 6’4”, or the size of a midget. His accomplishments were his accomplishments. It could make them more impressive, but it doesn’t make it better.
Like I said, it was certainly rarer, but it doesn’t make it better. His peak is his peak, doesn’t matter what size he is. Nate Archibald was 1st team all NBA 3 times and 2nd team twice, he averaged an insane amount of points at the early part of his career as a 6’1” PG. I am not going to say that his achievements were more than it actually was because of his size.
Serving chocolate milk in a bar is rare, doesn’t make it a better bar, nor does it make it better chocolate milk.
Kobe was no Magic during 00-02, Magic won Finals MVP in 1980, Kobe never did in 00-02 Magic won two championships with Kareem as the clear sidekick, and arguably three (85), Kobe never won a championship with Shaq as his sidekick, in fact, he was partly responsible for that not happening (yes, Shaq had a bigger share of all that drama). Magic had more MVP votes than Kareem from 82 onwards, and the Lakers won 4 championships during that time. Kobe won one championship when he had more MVP votes than Shaq, Shaq won 3.
And Kobe was the best player from 05 to 07 because he led his team to missing the playoffs once and getting kicked out of the 1st round twice? How was that dominant?
BTW, players who missed the playoffs but received MVP votes:
Allen Iverson – 05 to 06
PJ Brown – 04 to 05 (I will never understand this one)
Andrei Kirilenko – 03-04
You get pretty much pity votes, but you don’t get zero votes every time you miss the playoffs. In fact, Kobe got zero votes in 05 because he was a PR disaster that year, and pissed off the whole voting group.
First off, we are talking about different compe ion, second, as you said, Kobe didn’t even finish in the top 15. You can’t just dismiss that. 3rd, you said Kobe was the best from 01 to 07, the MVP comparison between the two clearly refutes that.
This is extremely misleading. The paces of the two teams were very different. Duncan’s stats, even on the slower paced team, is better than Kobe (23/13/4/3 > 29/5/6/2) 2nd, the sample sizes are very different. And once again, you are simply dismissing times when Kobe didn’t do as well, it’s almost like rewarding him for being on a crappy team.
This is even more misleading. This is discounting the fact that a) Kobe played as sidekick to Shaq during his most dominant stretch, b) dismissing the year the Lakers didn’t even make the playoffs, c) talking about two different eras against very different compe ion, and d) dismissing the contributions of either’s supporting casts.
In other words, these records are meaningless.
Besides, if you want to count playoff records, how can you even assert Kobe being the best in 05-07? You have to be consistent in your approach, and Jamstone, you are much better than this.
Kevin McHale averaged 26/10/3 and 2blks in 86-87, shooting 60.4% from the field, and 84% from the line. Yet he was a CLEAR sidekick to Bird.
Pippen averaged 21/7/5 in 92, shooting 51% from the field. Again, as a sidekick.
Magic Johnson was doing 22/8/8 in 81 to Kareem’s sidekick.
Dr. J was doing 22/7/4 to Malone’s sidekick.
Stockton was throwing in 13+ assists with 17+ ppg 3 years in a roll as Malone’s sidekick (although I would argue Malone was putting up 31 ppg as Stockton’s sidekick)
Besides, what does it matter? Because in that same season, Shaq was throwing in 29/14/4, and leading the league in FG%. He average 30 and 15 in the playoffs as the clear cut alpha male on that team. Shaq was so ridiculously dominating those few years people were prematurely mentioning him in the same breath as Hakeem, Wilt and Kareem, just like how Kobe supporters are putting him in the same sentence as Jordan.
Funny that was exactly what I was thinking, because it seemed like you missed the early part of the 00’s by even suggesting Kobe was building his legacy back in the early part of the millennium. He sure didn’t hurt it by being one of the best players in the league during that time, but he was no Shaq or Duncan either.
Finally, I understand that you, as a Pistons fan, is trying to drum up Kobe and make him comparable to Jordan, and there is absolutely no way you can do that if Kobe can’t even be the best player of the 00’s, when everybody and their grandmother knows that Jordan > Shaq and Duncan. So you try to at least make Kobe > Shaq and Duncan to make your hidden agenda more plausible. But the sad part is, you can’t even say that Kobe > Shaq or Duncan, and you can never compare him to Jordan.
Finally, I understand that you, as a Spur fan, is trying to downplay Kobe and make him comparable to Pippen, and there is absolutely no way you can do that if Kobe is be the best player of the 00’s, when everybody and their grandmother knows that Kobe > McHale and Pippen. So you try to at least make Kobe < Shaq and Duncan to make your hidden agenda more plausible. But the sad part is, you can’t even say that Kobe < Shaq or Duncan, and you can never compare him to McHale.
If not for Fisher's shot, San Antonio has a decent chance at a 2003-2005 three-peat. All the jokes Lakerfan likes to make about SA not being able to repeat wouldn't happen if not for D-Fish's shot.
2001 and 2002, they were Shaq's Lakers. They became Kobe's Lakers in 2003 (the year they stopped winning championships).
If I have a hidden agenda in saying that Kobe < Shaq or Duncan, I would be saying Kobe < Shaq or Duncan? That really isn't all that hidden, is it?
I won't make this a quote and post-quote and post marathon. I'll just respond to a few of the points and only quote parts I think are necessary...
You're doing a good job trying to twist what I wrote though. I didn't say Ariza equated to the Spurs three point shooters. I said if you give him credit, give credit to Duncan's supporting cast, specifically his three point shooters in 2003. Don't twist what I say. Earlier you said Kobe's team last year was loaded. It wasn't. After Gasol, they had a bunch of role players. Ariza played well. He's also a second round draft pick that two teams basically gave away and the Lakers didn't even re-sign for the MLE. Stop sucking on his like he's the next LeBron James.
The Lakers team last year was very good. It wasn't loaded. Gasol isn't a top 3 center, by the way, as you claimed earlier. Not last year, not now.
I was never going to argue anything about Tiny Archibald. You brought him up. My point was to mention how Kobe's greatness is more impressive because he's a 6'6 perimeter player and not a 7-footer, and he still dominated the game. You even admitted it's more impressive yourself. Bringing up Archibald or Spud Webb or whoever is not pertinent to my point at all, unless they dominated the way Kobe and Duncan have dominated. There's another point you're trying to twist inaccurately.
Kobe put up 28/5/5 in 2000-01. You can go down in the history books and probably only find a handful of players that did that. That was dominating. He wasn't Magic. They're not the same type of player. But, he was special and great and dominant in his own way even as early as 2000-01. Who puts up 28/5/5? Not even Magic did that, not once in his career. That's Michael, Oscar, LeBron territory. Your memory is skewed with bias. Kobe was dominating the league in 2000-01 and he had already taken control of the Lakers. Shaq was still the superstar, but that was more Kobe's team than it was Shaq's.
Kobe was the best player in the league from 2005-07, yes. He just wasn't on a great team. Michael had already become the best player in the league in 1986-87 when his Chicago Bulls were 40-42 and swept from the playoffs. Oscar Robertson had already established himself as one of the top 2 players in the league by 1962-63 on a 42-38 Cincinnati team.
You said it right there. Pity votes. PR disaster. Kobe didn't get MVP votes in 2004-05 because nobody pitied him after his Colorado scandal and people thinking he got Shaq traded. It wasn't because he wasn't the best player in the league. It was because of PR. Thanks for expounding on that point.You get pretty much pity votes, but you don’t get zero votes every time you miss the playoffs. In fact, Kobe got zero votes in 05 because he was a PR disaster that year, and pissed off the whole voting group.
As you just stated, Kobe didn't get MVP votes in 2005 because he was a PR disaster. It wasn't because he wasn't the best player in the league. Add to that my point that you don't get MVP votes when you're on a lottery team (or if you do, it's stupidity as you mentioned PJ Brown getting an MVP vote), and there you have it.First off, we are talking about different compe ion, second, as you said, Kobe didn’t even finish in the top 15. You can’t just dismiss that. 3rd, you said Kobe was the best from 01 to 07, the MVP comparison between the two clearly refutes that.
I don't dismiss 2005. You were the one who brought up MVP voting. I listed their places in MVP voting to show you that it was actually pretty close. If Duncan has the advantage in the first 4-5 seasons of the decade, Kobe has the advantage the last 4 seasons. But, the difference in the advantage of each guy isn't that much at all, 2005 notwithstanding.
So let me get this straight. You don't want to give Kobe any props for dominating as a perimeter player, but you want to qualify Duncan's stats because of pace and tempo? I hear you hypocrisy, loud and clear. Here, have a glass of chocolate milk. It makes this bar that much better.This is extremely misleading. The paces of the two teams were very different. Duncan’s stats, even on the slower paced team, is better than Kobe (23/13/4/3 > 29/5/6/2) 2nd, the sample sizes are very different. And once again, you are simply dismissing times when Kobe didn’t do as well, it’s almost like rewarding him for being on a crappy team.
It's arguable at best to say Duncan's stats are better than Kobe's. Again, I'm the one claiming it's a toss-up. You saying Duncan's stats are better smells of extreme bias.
Next, how is the sample sizes too different? Those are the playoff stats of each player from 2001 playoffs on. Duncan 134 playoff games this decade. Kobe 125 playoff games this decade. How is that sample size too different? That's a pretty similar sample size.
Take what you want from it. Those are the statistical facts of Kobe and Duncan in this past decade, the previous 9 post seasons. You want to twist it and spin it, you're welcome to do so. Bottom line is that Kobe's teams have fared better in the playoffs this past decade. The "sidekick" is getting tiring, but will again be addressed shortly.This is even more misleading. This is discounting the fact that a) Kobe played as sidekick to Shaq during his most dominant stretch, b) dismissing the year the Lakers didn’t even make the playoffs, c) talking about two different eras against very different compe ion, and d) dismissing the contributions of either’s supporting casts.
It does dismiss the year the Lakers didn't make the playoffs in 2004-05. Those are PLAYOFF records. If the Lakers didn't make the playoffs, they don't have a playoff record for that season. More chocolate milk?
How different were the eras??? We're talking about 2001 playoffs to 2009 playoffs for each player. Why are you mentioning two different eras and two different compe ion for the same time frame??? Are you actually reading what you write? Would you like me to put that glass of chocolate milk in the microwave to warm it up?
1. The Celtics didn't win a championship in 1986-87. Moreover, in the playoffs, Kevin McHale's scoring dropped to 21 ppg while Bird averaged 27 ppg. In the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, Kobe averaged 28 ppg while Shaq averaged 29.4 ppg. McHale was much more a sidekick, while Kobe was much more a co-go-to-guy.Kevin McHale averaged 26/10/3 and 2blks in 86-87, shooting 60.4% from the field, and 84% from the line. Yet he was a CLEAR sidekick to Bird.
Pippen averaged 21/7/5 in 92, shooting 51% from the field. Again, as a sidekick.
Magic Johnson was doing 22/8/8 in 81 to Kareem’s sidekick.
Dr. J was doing 22/7/4 to Malone’s sidekick.
2. Pippen never averaged anywhere near what Jordan did in scoring, and Pippen never had the ball at the end of close games in his hands. Kobe almost always had the ball in his hands at the end of close games in the playoffs.
3. Magic wasn't Kareem's sidekick in 1981. He stopped being a sidekick after the 1980 NBA Finals. That's why you mentioning him now actually helps my argument. Thanks. More chocolate milk.
4. When the Sixers won the 1983 le, Julius Erving was every bit the man on that team as Moses was. That's a great comparison actually to help prove my point. Julius actually was a top 3 MVP candidate in 1980, 81, and 82 right behind Moses. Julius was considered the greatest or one of the greatest players in the league in the early 1980s before Magic and Bird emerged as the two best for the rest of that era. That's why you can be the greatest player in the league and play with another great player like Julius did with Moses and some detractors will call you the "sidekick." Thanks for reminding us of Julius and Moses. That's a perfect example.
5. Stockton was a sidekick. Stockton was never viewed as one of the greatest players in the league, not a top 5 player in the league at any rate.
The same time Shaq was dropping 30/15, Kobe was putting up 29 ppg, 7 rpg, and 6 apg in the 2001 playoffs. Those are not "sidekick" stats. I dare you to find any "sidekick" putting up those types of numbers in the playoffs. The guys you mentioned above didn't put up those numbers. You won't find any other "sidekick" putting up 29/7/6 in the playoffs. You won't.
WTF with the "Pistons fan" comment??? Kobe will never be as great as Jordan. Jordan has absolutely nothing to do with any of my comments. You've fallen off the deep end. Did you e your chocolate milk?Finally, I understand that you, as a Pistons fan, is trying to drum up Kobe and make him comparable to Jordan, and there is absolutely no way you can do that if Kobe can’t even be the best player of the 00’s, when everybody and their grandmother knows that Jordan > Shaq and Duncan. So you try to at least make Kobe > Shaq and Duncan to make your hidden agenda more plausible. But the sad part is, you can’t even say that Kobe > Shaq or Duncan, and you can never compare him to Jordan.
You're talking to one of the biggest Kobe haters on this site, no amount of logic or reasoning will change this, believe me.
And don't worry Kobe Haters, he's not even a vote option for this first category of voting. Your hate is safe for now.
"VOTE 1 - BEST PERFORMANCE: PLAYOFFS"
http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote1/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
