Bruce Bowen: Kobe is the second greatest player of all-time

[spursfan09]

Bowen should thank Kobe for his rings... Especially that one in 03.

[dbreiden83080]

Sit tight on this one, its coming.

Page long reply on Kobe excuses for that one no thanks..

[21_Blessings]

Bowen should thank Kobe for his rings... Especially that one in 03.

Actually he should be thanking Horry for that 03 one. It was as if he was already playing for the Spurs that series.

[spursfan09]

Actually he should be thanking Horry for that 03 one. It was as if he was already playing for the Spurs that series.

Tis true!!

[carrao45]

Elgin Baylor practically never did with the Lakers. Sad case. Never won a championship. Excellent player though. I think Kobe is ahead of Baylor and Mikan, maybe even West.

Starting the game after Baylor retired, the Lakers started that 33 game winning streak.

And Baylor was not greater than Kobe. Neither was Mikan (Dude shot a lower percentage AS A CENTER).


And as great as West was: 4-6 in the Finals (4 les)>>>>1-8 in Finals (1 le)

[Chieflion]

Starting the game after Baylor retired, the Lakers started that 33 game winning streak.

And Baylor was not greater than Kobe. Neither was Mikan (Dude shot a lower percentage AS A CENTER).


And as great as West was: 4-6 in the Finals (4 les)>>>>1-8 in Finals (1 le)

Yep. I had the book published after the 2003 NBA finals on "Who's best, who's greatest in basketball". Simply put, him not winning championships is one thing, but it really does not help his case when the team pulled off the longest winning streak in pro sports, not just basketball, and went on to steamroll to the championship that year.

I think Jamstone also mentioned about Charles Barkley and Dennis Rodman's rebounding ability to compare to Baylor. I believe Rodman played small forward at the start of his career. However, again, the pace of the game was too different, and the athletes, height of the players, physical talent, etc. There are too many variables to account for. I have to acknowledge the fact he was probably the best rebounding small forward of his generation which was why I said he could probably grab 9 rebounds a game for his career in average and break 10 a few times in his career.

[ginobili's bald spot]

He also faced the Boston Celtics 6 out of those 7 times. The only other team the Lakers faced in the Finals with Elgin Baylor on the team was the New York Knicks in 1970 when Elgin Baylor was 35 years old and he still put up 19/10.

None of these excuses change or contradict anything that I said. But thanks for spouting off random facts.

He only played with Wilt Chamberlain in two NBA Finals, again when Elgin was already 34 and 35 years old, and Wilt was scoring in the teens, not the dominating 35+ PPG he was earlier in his career.

If you knew nearly as much as you pretended, you would know that Wilt was averaging 20 & 20 during the years he and Baylor played together. It wasn't until the Lakers won the le in 71-72 that Wilt averaged in the teens.


So either:

A. You are an intellectually dishonest piece of

or

B. You have no ing clue what you are talking about, while you rip me for supposedly not knowing Lakers history. Which not only makes you dumb but also a hypocrite.

Here are the FACTS which you unsuccessfully attempted to obfuscate:


-Elgin Baylor has 0 championships.


-Elgin Baylor couldn't win a championship with an allegedly washed up Wilt Chamberlain averaging 20 points and 20 rebounds and another all time great Jerry West.

-The year Elgin Baylor retired, an older and more washed up Wilt Chamberlain averaging only "in the teens" along with Jerry West and the exact same Lakers team won the championship.

-The game following Elgin Baylor's retirement, the Lakers went on an NBA record 33 game win streak.


And you want to call this player better than someone with 4 rings and counting?

You see, you want to harp on the 8 times the Lakers went to the NBA Finals and lost without understanding why they went so many times. The league was a 9-12 team league for much of Elgin Baylor's career. There was one great team, and that was the Celtics.

Ok, so let me get this straight. The fact that it was only a 9-12 team league is supposed to make it more excusable that he never won a championship? It doesn't take a math major to see that makes no sense. That just strengthens my point even further.

In his prime, for example in 1961-62, he averaged 39 PPG and 18 RPG for the entire playoffs. You're going to fault him for not beating the Celtics in the Finals when he's putting up those kinds of numbers? The following year, he put up 33/14 in the playoffs. Yeah, must have been Elgin's fault.

You can quote numbers from an era with inflated stats all you want. The fact remains that he didn't win . Not only that but the Lakers got better as soon as he left. To be more exact, they got HISTORICALLY good.

Allen Iverson put up good stats too, but he's sitting at home right now without a job. Why is that? Like my man Herm said...


[youtube]




Now I'm not comparing him to A.I. I say that to illustrate the point that individual statistics alone do not make a player. Especially when the player doesn't win and the statistics were produced in an era of insanely inflated numbers compared to today, due to obvious differences in how the game is played. I'm not saying that Baylor wasn't a good player. But The impact he had is better shown by contrasting the success of his team with and without him rather than quoting to inflated stats from 1960. And as I pointed out earlier it paints a pretty clear and concise picture.

Are you sure you're a Laker fan? Do you know any Laker history predating Shaq-Kobe?

Is it even possible to have a cordial conversation with you? Not sure why you felt the need to take shots at me. You're so sensitive. I wonder why there is so much anger in your posts. Is it because you live in the biggest hole in America? Or because you have a tiny asian that you feel the need to compensate for? But since you asked, I have been watching Laker games ever since I can remember, starting with the showtime Lakers. I know for a fact that I have only missed a hand full of games since about 1990. So to answer your question, yes.

[carrao45]

Yep. I had the book published after the 2003 NBA finals on "Who's best, who's greatest in basketball". Simply put, him not winning championships is one thing, but it really does not help his case when the team pulled off the longest winning streak in pro sports, not just basketball, and went on to steamroll to the championship that year.

I think Jamstone also mentioned about Charles Barkley and Dennis Rodman's rebounding ability to compare to Baylor. I believe Rodman played small forward at the start of his career. However, again, the pace of the game was too different, and the athletes, height of the players, physical talent, etc. There are too many variables to account for. I have to acknowledge the fact he was probably the best rebounding small forward of his generation which was why I said he could probably grab 9 rebounds a game for his career in average and break 10 a few times in his career.

Who's Better, Who's Best you mean? If that's what you mean, I have the book too. It's very good.

[JamStone]

None of these excuses change or contradict anything that I said. But thanks for spouting off random facts.

Qualifying doesn't necessarily have to expose contradiction.

And, the fact that you blamed him for 8 NBA Finals losses when he only played in 7 NBA Finals isn't a random fact. It shows you didn't quite know what you were talking about.

If you knew nearly as much as you pretended, you would know that Wilt was averaging 20 & 20 during the years he and Baylor played together. It wasn't until the Lakers won the le in 71-72 that Wilt averaged in the teens.


So either:

A. You are an intellectually dishonest piece of

or

B. You have no ing clue what you are talking about, while you rip me for supposedly not knowing Lakers history. Which not only makes you dumb but also a hypocrite.

I looked at playoff numbers. Wilt averaged 13.9 ppg in the 1969 playoffs. The two post seasons the Lakers made it to the NBA Finals with Elgin and Wilt on the team, Wilt averaged 18.0 ppg.

I didn't take anything away from Wilt's rebounding. However, Wilt averaging 20 ppg in an era you like to qualify with inflated stats is still not the same as the 36 ppg Wilt was averaging before joining the Lakers. 36 ppg v. 20 ppg. Hmmmmmmmm.

Here are the FACTS which you unsuccessfully attempted to obfuscate:


-Elgin Baylor has 0 championships.


-Elgin Baylor couldn't win a championship with an allegedly washed up Wilt Chamberlain averaging 20 points and 20 rebounds and another all time great Jerry West.

-The year Elgin Baylor retired, an older and more washed up Wilt Chamberlain averaging only "in the teens" along with Jerry West and the exact same Lakers team won the championship.

-The game following Elgin Baylor's retirement, the Lakers went on an NBA record 33 game win streak.

And you want to call this player better than someone with 4 rings and counting?

1. Never claimed Elgin won any championships.

2. A player averaging 20 ppg is a far cry from his prime when in his prime, he was averaging 36 ppg. It would be like Kobe averaging 10 ppg this season and claiming he's just as dominant as he was in his prime.

3. Elgin Baylor was pretty much done before the season he retired. Interesting how when the Lakers won the le in 1972, Bill Russell had already retired.

4. Elgin played 2 games total in the 1970-71 season. Why didn't the Lakers have that 33 game win streak in that season?

5. Go back to my posts. I never once claimed Elgin Baylor was better than Kobe. I merely said it's a tough criticism that he didn't win any les when the prime of his career was during Russell's Celtics run.

Ok, so let me get this straight. The fact that it was only a 9-12 team league is supposed to make it more excusable that he never won a championship? It doesn't take a math major to see that makes no sense. That just strengthens my point even further.

Yes, because it was a one team league through most of Elgin's career. It was the Boston Celtics and everyone else. My point was that a bad team could make the Finals, just like the 33-39 Lakers. It makes plenty sense if you understand what I mean. In a small league, bad teams made the playoffs. Bad teams even made the Finals. There was one great team. The Celtics. They beat everybody.

You can quote numbers from an era with inflated stats all you want. The fact remains that he didn't win . Not only that but the Lakers got better as soon as he left. To be more exact, they got HISTORICALLY good.

Inflated stats like 20/20 wouldn't be that great, right? Your logic.

I didn't even read and won't even address that stuff mentioning Iverson...

Is it even possible to have a cordial conversation with you? Not sure why you felt the need to take shots at me. You're so sensitive. I wonder why there is so much anger in your posts. Is it because you live in the biggest hole in America? Or because you have a tiny asian that you feel the need to compensate for? But since you asked, I have been watching Laker games ever since I can remember, starting with the showtime Lakers. I know for a fact that I have only missed a hand full of games since about 1990. So to answer your question, yes.

So let me get this straight. A little jab at you not being a true Laker fan, and that is comparable to bashing an entire city and my ethnicity? Cool. I think you're a little warped if you think I'm the one who has anger issues or being sensitive. My jab was a small one, wasn't even all that serious. Yours carries quite a bit of animosity. But, it's cool. I'm not going to get all butthurt over a couple insults. Have more, if it's fun for you, by all means.

But, since you were so kind enough to answer my question, I'll answer yours. I'm not sensitive at all on this topic. I just shared my opinion. I'm not angry at you or anyone else in this thread. Again, it's merely an opinion. And, Detroit, Michigan is absolutely struggling right now as a city, especially economically. But, I was born and raised here. Love the city despite its problems. And, I don't consider it a hole by any stretch. That perception and image it has is actually a lot further from the truth if someone would actually give an honest and thorough research and look at the city. But, I'm not asking anyone to do that, not you. You do know that Los Angeles and California is in as bad a shape economically if not worse than Detroit and Michigan, right? They had to get private donors to pay for the Lakers championship parade because the city is broke. But, hey, I like LA too.

As for me having a tiny asian , well, I appreciate your interest in my . If you are a woman, and by that last post, I can at least tell you're a , then PM me. Maybe you can find out how tiny it is. If you're a man, sorry, I don't swing that way. But, again, thanks, in a platonic appreciation, your interest in my .