And the Sacramento Kings have a ring by that logic.
Its definately a debate ... To me it was more like Duncan vs Garnett while tim only had the one ring ... Both had similar stats while one guy had a better team .. Kobe was thebetter perimeter defender by a fair margin .. Mcgrady was a slightly better passer and finisher while Kobe had the better game from further out ...
I'd take Kobe .. But it was very close
Which will soon be fixed as well.
It was up for debate, which is funny considering the revisionist history NOW about Kobe being the best player in the NBA since the 3-peat years..
I would have taken Kobe, but there was serious arguments involving the 2 at the time..same with a lot of people picking Carter over Kobe in 2000 and 2001 as well..
WRONG. The Kings franchise has never won a ring. Count how many times the word "Kings" appears and count how many times the word "Lakers" appears on the NBA's official list of NBA Champions.
http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html
Last edited by namlook; 01-02-2010 at 07:59 PM.
It was close when Kobe was a young player, but now? Kobe's career blows McGrady's out of the water.
T-Mac and Kobe were very close but injury problems held back McGrady. Both were potent scorers who could blow up opposing teams by themselves and were pretty good defenders.
It would be interesting to see how today would pan out if T-Mac was completely healthy during all these years that he was held back with back or arm or leg or whatever problems.
Same thing could be said about Bill Walton, Penny Hardaway and many others. The greatest players are great in part because their bodies are able to withstand the rigors of playing a long career.
I don't think McGrady would have been as good even if he was healthy..like his cousin, they both didn't have the drive or work ethic to be all-timers..they were both more talented than Kobe, but Kobe has a legendary drive and work ethic to keep him on top of his game for a long time, while the other 2 relied on natural talent/athleticism and took their talent for granted..
1950-51
Rochester Royals
New York Knicks
4-3
Just because they changed their name, they still have their history, the Kings have one championship as the Rochester Royals.
Play that game? I'm pretty sure there's been controversy about whether the Celtics really are the Clippers...google itIt's 17 rings > 10 rings
Again it is not debatable. Kobe > T-Mac during any period of their careers.
If you're still debating this:
1) you're trolling
2) irrationally hate Kobe
3) know nothing about how basketball is played
4) all of the above
Name changes don't change the fact that it's the same franchise that won the ring. Hard Fail.
5) Or simply more intelligent and less homeristic than 21_Beastialities
How many of those seasons did Tracy have Shaq for? Having said that Kobe had a bit more killer instinct that T-Mac.
def. an argument....
but kobe def. wins...everyone has to agree...
look at what kobe has done in the playoffs and look at what tmac has done...
a lot more than a bit
McGrady has a playoff scoring average of 28.53 ppg, good for 5th all time.
Kobe has 25.03 ppg.
McGrady can do something in the playoffs, given the right team.
Last edited by Unholy Turkey; 01-03-2010 at 12:32 AM. Reason: Misprinted something
Like not getting out of the first round
I wrote that in there as an under exaggeration. I thought someone might pick that out, but I can't believe even the smallest details you guys try to find to prop Kobe up.
This here is the whole thing. Kobe should be compared to a T-Mac, not guys like Tim Duncan and Shaq. If Shaq could have played the decade better in the second half Kobe would be the 3rd best player.
If you want to start comparing Kobe from say 2008 to whenever he decides to not play anymore then that would be better than constantly trying to ram him down everyone's throat.
Before Gasol showed up Kobe didn't make the playoffs once and lost twice in the first round. The debate was definitely legit because you saw what Kobe did by himself with an average team. Not much more than T-Mac.
T-mac was a pretty good player. 28.3 is pretty darn good for anyone in the playoffs. Maybe with a different team he could have went further, maybe not, but he did have some amazing skill and talent.
Kobe is definitely tougher than T-Mac that is for sure, but still you can't say T-Mac is a piece of .
I take Kobe over him though any day of the week because I don't really like soft players and T-Mac has been soft at times to say the least.
Last edited by Ice009; 01-03-2010 at 01:06 AM.
This is a no brainer hands down.
Kobe is a better player than T-Mac. Why? Cause Kobe is a winner.
“There are plenty of teams in every sport that have great players and
never win les. Most of the time, those players aren't willing to
sacrifice for the greater good of the team. The funny thing is, in
the end, their unwillingness to sacrifice only makes individual
goals more difficult to achieve. One thing I believe to the fullest
is that if you think and achieve as a team, the individual accolades
will take care of themselves. Talent wins games, but teamwork and
intelligence win championships.” -Michael Jordan
Kobe got/gets the all-defensive nods based on reputation and hype. No doubt he has the ability to play great defense but he rarely utilizes that ability. Rarely will he guard the opposing team's best wing... he's had guys like Fox, George, Ariza, and now Artest to do that for him throughout his entire career. There will be the rare occasions where he'll sparingly guard guys like Tmac, Wade, Bron, etc but moreso for selfish reasons and to try to make a point that he's the best. Aside from a few obvious choices which are chosen correctly, all-defensive teams have always been a joke and you mostly see superstar guards get the nod over guys that actually earn their paycheck by playing defense. As far as Tmac being a loser and not winning, he didnt have Shaq. He's never even had anyone as good as Pau, Yao was young and wasnt ready yet when Tmac was healthy.
With that said, I choose Kobe but its alot closer than some of you homers think.
I had this debate with a co-worker (back then) and I just laughed I told him Kobe was a Hof'er and TMAC was an all-star... BIG difference.Thing was I thought it was close for a brief while but TMAC Grant hill and Penny (though hill has redemmed himself) are comets they streak hot for a whil evrybody hypes them up but in the grand schem they are found lacking what it takes to be a "MEGAstar" (Mj, Kobe, Lebron, Magic etc.)
TMac I knew was done once the back problems cropped up ...
All those players were sure HOFs as well, especially Grant Hill. Injuries just screwed them over...if Detroit wouldnt have ed Hill's career up by playing him injured in the playoffs the year before he jetted to Orlando not only would his career be different but so would Tmac's since they wouldve formed one of the best duos in the league. I dont think they have the drive to win that guys like MJ and Kobe did but very few players do, Im pretty sure those players still had a strong drive though even if wasnt on par with MJs or Kobe's.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
