Reply With Quote
Wallace got a hard on to act like somebody for the first & only time in his life. Unfortunately it was against us.
I don't think it's a troll.
Wallace got a hard on to act like somebody for the first & only time in his life. Unfortunately it was against us.
Rasheed averaged 13 points on 45% FG shooting as a 6'11 PF in the 2004 NBA Finals.
Both Billups and Hamilton averaged 21 ppg. Billups shot 51% from the field and 47% from three point range. Rasheed absolutely helped, but he wasn't the main reason the Pistons beat the Lakers in 2004. It was the guard play, team defense, and Kobe shooting the Lakers out of most of those games.
I actually think the 2008 Celtics could have beaten the 2004 Pistons. Pistons still could win but it wouldn't be a "steamrolling." But that's not to say the Celtics are the best team among the rest of the 2000-09 championship teams. It's just that that Boston team would have matched up extremely well against the 2004 Pistons.
Need I remind you, that just a smidge over 3 short years (& a million Maverick tears ago) the Heat bent you over the state of Florida and hid the salami where the sun don't shine, and I don't mean London?
+ he was such a calming influence on his hot-headed Piston mates. Every time they'd take off after a ref he'd play peacemaker. Yeah! Can ya f'in imagine it, that lunatic being civilized?
No he wasn't. Billups played peacemaker when anyone on the team got upset with officiating. If anything, especially in 2004, Rasheed made his teammates blow up at officials even more, particularly Rip and Ben. Even in the Finals, you don't remember Rasheed going after Medvedenko and yelling and screaming at him?
Wth were you watching?
Ha! I was watching Wallace (cast against type) playing peacemaker for the first & only time in his looney tune life.
You still are avoiding the question, Lars.
Was 0 championship Hakeem on the same level as 4 ring Kobe, 4 ring Duncan or 5 ring Magic?
This is a no brainer, Kobe ain't got on Hakeem. Hakeem can win champions without help. Kobe can't.....
Yeah, although I believe Oden's going to be a very good Center, Durant will always be better I think.
hakeem and the question shouldn't be asked.
LOL of course he was better than Kobe and Duncan....not sure about Magic because I didnt see him play much in his prime. Modern era players are no where near the level of the 80s/90s. I wouldnt even put Kobe as the second best player of this era. Shaq > Duncan > Kobe.
I have never ever seen anyone with the grace and finese that the Dream had. He literally had zero weaknesses, not even one. Do you realize he is the only center even near the top of the all time steals list. I think Drob is second all the way down at 42. His defense was unbelievable, he might even be the greatest defensive player or all time. Not to mention he put up unreal rebounding numbers, especially when considering he played alongside some of the best rebounders in business (Barkley, Sampson, Thorpe). He is the only player in NBA history placed in the top ten for all four categories (scoring, rebounding, blocks, steals)
Kobe Bryant is a fantastic offensive player and an average defender, despite what "Experts" might say. Dream is superior in nearly every facet of the game, save scoring and even then it is very very close.
You keep saying 4 ring Kobe like it means something, Kobe was no ring Kobe until Shaq arrived, then Shaq left and he became not very good Kobe again, until Gasol was gifted to him, then he gets put up on a pedestool because he is the closest thing to marketable in the NBA. Kobe Bryant is a product of the corporate NBA. Stacked teams, favorable officiating, hand checking rule change, etc. If you want to compare him to someone, compare him to Drexler, thats a decent comparison, because he sure as aint no Jordan.
Kobe Bryant never won anything unless he was on an extremely stacked team and that is a fact. He never overcame adversity ever. When times where tough he quit and demanded a trade. So this "four ring" crap means nothing. The Lakers won those rings, not the Kobe Bryants.
That answers the question, you're a blind homer. That's ok, though, you gots your opinion.
In my opinion, no way 0 ring Hakeem belongs in the convseration with 4 ring Kobe, 4 ring Duncan and 5 ring Magic.
Last edited by Allanon; 11-28-2009 at 11:51 PM.
So you are saying that Kobe during his prime is better than a God?
Because not too long ago, you said ....
Otherwise, you said Hakeem > Kobe during their primes, and it's pretty obvious Hakeem > Kobe prior to their primes.Don't be stupid.
I said Kobe is better than Hakeem in his years prior to the championships. Hakeem was a basketball god during the championship years, nobody denies that.
I'd like to see your counter and proof tomorrow on how Hakeem was better (prior to the Championships) than Kobe; should be entertaining pwnage
We have yet to see Kobe's decline.
So from the available sample, Hakeem > Kobe both prior to their primes and during their primes.
And why would anyone ever compare Kobe's prime years to Hakeem's non-prime years? Was Kobe really that far away from Hakeem that you have to compare his best to Hakeem's worst?
Please read the thread, you're totally confused.
I have not said that Kobe > Hakeem in their primes. That's yet to be determined.
Incorrect, I didn't say this either and I dispute that Hakeem > Kobe prior to their primes.Otherwise, you said Hakeem > Kobe during their primes, and it's pretty obvious Hakeem > Kobe prior to their primes.
How's Hakeem greater than Kobe prior to their primes?So from the available sample, Hakeem > Kobe both prior to their primes and during their primes.
And why would anyone ever compare Kobe's prime years to Hakeem's non-prime years? Was Kobe really that far away from Hakeem that you have to compare his best to Hakeem's worst?
They both had great output while Kobe came home with 3 rings to Hakeem's 0.
Kobe was far better than Hakeem prior to their Prime years.
My comparison has nothing to do with rings, but strictly stats. The reason i compared the two in terms of stats and say they are equal, is because thats what you did with Dwight Howard and Hakeem. You said, Dwight = Hakeem, because they have similar stats. Remember the comparison was before Hakeem won any rings, so rings dont come into it.
Im trying to prove to you that there is alot more to the game than stats, especially when it comes to great big men like Hakeem.
Again, we are comparing the two BEFORE they won championships as the main dogs - that means rings dont come in to. Your initial argument was that before Hakeems prime, Kobe > Hakeem, because Kobe had better stats and numbers. This is what we are arguing about, rings dont come in to it unless we are talking about their entire careers. You admitted, during their primes, Hakeem>Kobe. Im trying to say even before Hakeem's 2 championships, or his prime, he was better than Kobe.
]
And if it was that easy, there would have been more quadruple-doubles. Hakeem and David Robinson were the only two guys to EVER register a quadruple double. In my eyes, 81 points, and a quadruple double are equally impressive, especially when the guy is doing it with 30+ points and 20+ rebounds
LeBron shoots a better %, averages 2+ more rebounds, and 3+ more assists. If my maths is correct, 3 assists equates to more than the 4 point advantage Kobe has in scoring. And even if we are just looking at scoring, which is silly because thats only one part of the game, i still think LeBron is equally as impressive because he requires less shots, and thus less possessions to get his numbers compared to Kobe, meaning he is increasing his teams efficiency, and ultimately increasing his teams chances of winning the game.
Your reaching now.
Facts + stats > Opinion.
That wasnt the comparison, we were comparing the two before they won championships as the main dogs. Pre 94 Hakeem vs Pre 2008 Kobe. But even then, i think 0 ring Hakeem was at least equal as a player to 4 ring Kobe. But, having said that, if you compare the two in terms of greatness, then Kobe would be looked at more favourably, because in the end, its about winning rings as the main dog. Again, that wasnt the comparison, its unfair to handicap one guy and compare one before he won a ring, and a guy after he has his rings, in terms of their standing in history.
If you replace 88-90 Hakeem with Kobe on that 2009 Laker team, i think they steamroll their way to a championship, even if their opposition was 100% healthy.
No need to explain that one, I brought in Dwight to make the same point.
Ah, wasn't sure if you had moved to that conversation yet. Fair enough, prior to rings then.Again, we are comparing the two BEFORE they won championships as the main dogs - that means rings dont come in to. Your initial argument was that before Hakeems prime, Kobe > Hakeem, because Kobe had better stats and numbers. This is what we are arguing about, rings dont come in to it unless we are talking about their entire careers. You admitted, during their primes, Hakeem>Kobe. Im trying to say even before Hakeem's 2 championships, or his prime, he was better than Kobe.
Kobe had outlandish stats as an individual player, Hakeem did not. Hakeem was a superstar type player, no doubt. But he had your standard superstar numbers.
Kobe had historical feats like his 81 points, 62-61. Hakeem did not.
Nah, Nate Thurmond, Alvin Robertson also have official quadruple doubles. And Wilt, Russell and West are all said to have had quaduple doubles as well but they weren't recorded back then.And if it was that easy, there would have been more quadruple-doubles. Hakeem and David Robinson were the only two guys to EVER register a quadruple double. In my eyes, 81 points, and a quadruple double are equally impressive, especially when the guy is doing it with 30+ points and 20+ rebounds
Guys like Michael Ray Richardson, Johnny Moore, Larry Steele, Rick Barry, Drexler, Bird also missed it by 1.
A nice feat but not nearly as rare as an 81 point game. Kobe's 81 point is only second to Wilt's 100.
If you want pure stats, I think LeBron surpassed Kobe in 2008-09 but not before.LeBron shoots a better %, averages 2+ more rebounds, and 3+ more assists. If my maths is correct, 3 assists equates to more than the 4 point advantage Kobe has in scoring. And even if we are just looking at scoring, which is silly because thats only one part of the game, i still think LeBron is equally as impressive because he requires less shots, and thus less possessions to get his numbers compared to Kobe, meaning he is increasing his teams efficiency, and ultimately increasing his teams chances of winning the game.
The stats are close enough to merit opinion. As much as I value your opinion, I'd take JVG's and Larry Bird's over yours.Your reaching now.
Facts + stats > Opinion.
How can 0 ring Hakeem equal 4 ring Kobe? Now that's just ridiculous. Without his rings, Hakeem's another Barkley and Malone taking a back-seat to Duncan and Kobe.That wasnt the comparison, we were comparing the two before they won championships as the main dogs. Pre 94 Hakeem vs Pre 2008 Kobe. But even then, i think 0 ring Hakeem was at least equal as a player to 4 ring Kobe. But, having said that, if you compare the two in terms of greatness, then Kobe would be looked at more favourably, because in the end, its about winning rings as the main dog. Again, that wasnt the comparison, its unfair to handicap one guy and compare one before he won a ring, and a guy after he has his rings, in terms of their standing in history.
Nah, the Lakers Shooting Guard would have been Vujacic. That Laker team would have lost 1-3 in the first round just like most of Hakeem's pre-championship years.If you replace 88-90 Hakeem with Kobe on that 2009 Laker team, i think they steamroll their way to a championship, even if their opposition was 100% healthy.
Last edited by Allanon; 11-29-2009 at 01:30 AM.
I'd take Kobe. His drive, determination, work ethic and killer instinct are greater than Hakeem's, imo
Well you are a little dense then.
Hakeem by a mile..
Your using what you call Dwight Howard's comparable stats (they are not, Hakeems are by far superior) to say that Dwight = Hakeem, because of those very stats. But, when I use exactly the same logic as you, and say LeBron > Kobe between 2004-2007 because his stats are superior (or at least equal) - you change the basis of your argument to Jeff Van Gundy and Larry Bird said Kobe was better.
Which one is it? Opinion or stats?
You are right, there have only been four players to ever do it, i dont wanna know about the ones that came close. He also has the most 5x5 games in history with 6, and is the only guy to ever have a 5x6 game. Personally, i dont think these numbers, or Kobe's 81 matter when comparing the two in terms of their standing in history. Both had remarkable feats, so your wrong to say Kobe's were any greater. Hakeem holds his own against any player in history in terms of statistical feats.
You seem way too hung up on points, you almost ignore all other facets of the game. David Robinson scored 71 points in a game. He also had 10 rebounds and 5 assists and 2 blocked shots. Kobe scored 81, with only 6 rebounds and 2 assists. These two arent comparable? What about David Thompson, he scored 73 aswell. Wilt scored 100, and numerous 70 point games, including a 78.
You are confusing my use of the word 'stats', with what you are talking about, 'points'. LeBron has more rebounds, more assists, shoots a better % thus is more efficienct. Kobe scores more points because he took more shots, resulting in less efficiency. Theres more to stats than points scored.
So because JVG and Larry Bird say Kobe is the best we all have to take their word as final. These guys are human just like the rest of us, they have emotional attachment to the players aswell. One might be more aestheticlaly pleasing for a particular person. Im sure there are many players, past and present, who think LeBron was the best player in the League in that period, especially after he took his team to the Finals while Kobe was being bounced in the first round.
Ill use facts and stats - you can use your select opinions. No problem.
I said in terms of historical standing, Kobe would be > Hakeem because he would have 4 rings and Hakeem 0. But thats not the case, Hakeem has 2 rings as the main dog, and 2 finals MVP's, Kobe has more rings, but less as the main dog, and less Finals MVP's. Unfortunately its not as easy as 4>2.
How about we stop handicapping Hakeem by comparing him pre his championships as the main guy, to Kobe after his championship as the main guy.
Throw away all the rings, my point was that if you swap 1990 Hakeem with 2008 Kobe on last years Laker team, they still win the championship. Thats my opinion, if you disagree, thats fine - neither of us can prove it. You asked the question, i answered it.
who would you start a franchise with, a prime hakeem, or a prime kobe?
but very good options, but I think the answer to my question settles it.
How are Hakeem's stats far superior to Dwight?
Dwight 20.7 ppg, 14.2 rbd, 2.2 blocks, 60 FG%
Hakeem 24.8 ppg, 13.5 rbd, 3.44 blocks 51 FG%
Hakeem scored 5 more ppg at almost 10% less accuracy and had 1.2 more blocks. While Dwight had more rebounds and better accuracy. Pretty comparable to me.
We know Dwight's not as good as Hakeem but the end result was pretty much comparable. End result was the same, a Finals appearance and a bunch of near sweep first round exits.
I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong. Opinion I suppose.You are right, there have only been four players to ever do it, i dont wanna know about the ones that came close. He also has the most 5x5 games in history with 6, and is the only guy to ever have a 5x6 game. Personally, i dont think these numbers, or Kobe's 81 matter when comparing the two in terms of their standing in history. Both had remarkable feats, so your wrong to say Kobe's were any greater. Hakeem holds his own against any player in history in terms of statistical feats.
There's only one 81 point game in history and one of 100. Those are supernatural feats that haven't been duplicated. 1 by Wilt and the 2nd by Kobe.You seem way too hung up on points, you almost ignore all other facets of the game. David Robinson scored 71 points in a game. He also had 10 rebounds and 5 assists and 2 blocked shots. Kobe scored 81, with only 6 rebounds and 2 assists. These two arent comparable? What about David Thompson, he scored 73 aswell. Wilt scored 100, and numerous 70 point games, including a 78.
Hakeem never came close to such a feat and he didn't have rings either.
Points win games so it's the most important stat. That's your opinion versus mines again.You are confusing my use of the word 'stats', with what you are talking about, 'points'. LeBron has more rebounds, more assists, shoots a better % thus is more efficienct. Kobe scores more points because he took more shots, resulting in less efficiency. Theres more to stats than points scored.
Hey, they're human but they also know more about basketball than you or I. And I'll take their opinion over yours any day. No disrespect to you, I'd take them over my opinion as well.So because JVG and Larry Bird say Kobe is the best we all have to take their word as final. These guys are human just like the rest of us, they have emotional attachment to the players aswell. One might be more aestheticlaly pleasing for a particular person. Im sure there are many players, past and present, who think LeBron was the best player in the League in that period, especially after he took his team to the Finals while Kobe was being bounced in the first round.
Ill use facts and stats - you can use your select opinions. No problem.
I thought we're keeping this to prior to Kobe's main ring and Hakeem's rings. Simply put Kobe had 3 rings while Hakeem had none. His historical standing was less than Barkley's at that point.I said in terms of historical standing, Kobe would be > Hakeem because he would have 4 rings and Hakeem 0. But thats not the case, Hakeem has 2 rings as the main dog, and 2 finals MVP's, Kobe has more rings, but less as the main dog, and less Finals MVP's. Unfortunately its not as easy as 4>2.
I have no argument with Hakeem post his championship rings. This whole conversation evolved from pre-ring Hakeem. Pre-ring Hakeem was another Charles Barkley while Kobe had already gotten 3.How about we stop handicapping Hakeem by comparing him pre his championships as the main guy, to Kobe after his championship as the main guy.
I'm not going to debate post championship Hakeem, that was the Dream and Kobe isn't there yet.
That's cool. I don't think Hakeem would have won the championship with Sasha Vujacic as the shooting guard.Throw away all the rings, my point was that if you swap 1990 Hakeem with 2008 Kobe on last years Laker team, they still win the championship. Thats my opinion, if you disagree, thats fine - neither of us can prove it. You asked the question, i answered it.
But of course, that's just opinion.
And you're quite obtuse yourself then if you think 0 ring Hakeem was on 4 ringed Kobe/Duncan's level.
What the are you talking about 0 ring Hakeem. Players don't magically become better players once they win rings. Teams win rings, not players.
Bottom line:
1.) Hakeem took an average talent team vs. insurmountable odds (2 60 win teams) and came away victorious.
2.) Duncan took an average talent team (2003) vs. above average teams and came away victorious.
3.) Kobe took extremely stacked teams and won "some" of the time.
If Hakeem played in this era it would be complete and utter domination.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
