MVP + Finals MVP..

[FkLA]

doesnt matter...when you have teammates you win. Are you telling me that Duncan didnt have teamates in 2004 and 2006, but suddenly had them in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Win when you are suppose to. Simple as that.

Are you implying that Kobe has won every time he's had 'teammates'? Noone bats 100 son.

[DPG21920]

Hornets

[redzero]

Now that is a quality lefty post right there.

Are you going to say that I'm obsessed with you now? Are you going to call me a ?

[DPG21920]

Are you going to call someone a hypocrite and then just repeat things over and over?

lol trolled.

[redzero]

lol team smack

The Hornets didn't make the playoffs! You surely showed me!

[BadOdor]

lol shorty

lol redzero

lol spurs/hornets suck

[picc84]

Why do all you lakers fans hate on Lebron then?

Nice job changing the subject.

[redzero]

lol shorty

lol redzero

lol spurs/hornets suck

I'm quite aware that my team sucks, thank you. They were blown out by the Nets last season.

[picc84]

I agree with that, I was just making the other point. Kobe definitely was in an easier position to win talent wise when he did vs when Duncan had championship talent.

The difference in compe ion present in the 2003 playoffs versus the 2010 playoffs is astronomical.

Relative to the strength of each respective years' NBA, neither were in an easier position to win than the other.

[DPG21920]

What? The Lakers talent this year compared to everyone else was far greater than the 03 Spurs compared to everyone else.

[picc84]

100% bull .

How would you even begin to argue that.

[DPG21920]

Easily. This Laker's team is stacked.

[picc84]

Easy. So were at least 3 other teams. Next.

[DPG21920]

How does that change the fact the Lakers were the most stacked team?

[picc84]

All-stars within past 4 years:

Celtics: 5
Magic: 4
Lakers: 2

Next.

[DPG21920]

All Star is a joke. Next.

[Nathan89]

Celtics were not even supposed to make it to the finals. I hope you are not trying to claim that they were more stacked than the lakers. If they were the would have won because they play better together as a team than the Lakers do. The Lakers just have so much talent they win.

[picc84]

Good arguments. About what I expected. Especially liked the part where you proved LA is so much better than the rest of the league as opposed to SA in 2003 by....just saying so.

At least the Celtics were an actual legitimate team. Unlike an 8-seed without its best player and a one-man show run by a guard who can't score.

[picc84]

Celtics were not even supposed to make it to the finals. I hope you are not trying to claim that they were more stacked than the lakers. If they were the would have won because they play better together as a team than the Lakers do. The Lakers just have so much talent they win.

Go to bed, son.

[Nathan89]

Go to bed, son.

Good night.

[Koolaid_Man]

Easily. This Laker's team is stacked.

Kobe 5 > Spurs Franchise 4 read it an weep...

[DPG21920]

No one is debating that.

[Koolaid_Man]

No one is debating that.

It doesn't matter what you're debating TBH...Kobe's probably worth more to the league than the Spurs as an organization and that's no hyperbole...

[ogait]

Good arguments. About what I expected. Especially liked the part where you proved LA is so much better than the rest of the league as opposed to SA in 2003 by....just saying so.

At least the Celtics were an actual legitimate team. Unlike an 8-seed without its best player and a one-man show run by a guard who can't score.

Ok then. Let's start by which team in 2010 was better than the 2003 Lakers?

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Youre one of the few Laker fans making solid points. But 2003 was all Tim Duncan...I mean sure some of those players had their moments, along with Stephen Jackson whom you didnt mention. But none of them really performed at a high level consistently. Parker was benched in 4th quarters in favor of Claxton cause he was melting down not once, not twice, but numerous times. Ginobili was a pretty wild and erratic rookie, Jackson could hit 5 threes one game and miss them all the next not to mention his terrible turnovers, Bowen brought the D but was still somewhat of an offensive liability. Kerr played like one game, had a huge impact in it though obviously.

Not trying to discredit these players to boost Duncan, they had their moments and it wasnt the worse supporting cast in the world...but can you honestly say that it even remotely compares to what Kobe has had throughout most of this decade?

Last things about 2003: Don't forget coach Popovich and crew. Who knows how many weaknesses they found so the shooters could get those looks. Of course, Duncan played a hand in that execution. Even if you underate your team, it won a NBA championhip. The biggest threat was the Lakers and they were down to a 2 man offensive team, with Derek Fisher being the rarely used third option. Most of the 2000-02 bench guys that actually helped were gone. Horry proved in 2005 he wasn't washed up for the Spurs, he ptobably won that series with his game 5 performance.

Now, perhaps I can clear up the Duncan vs. Kobe debate once and for all. More on "that" later. First, look back at what Jamstone said in response to my critique of Bill Russell being top 10. Subs ute Ben Wallace for Russell. You could argue Wallace may have led his team to 11 les from the defensive end. (Also, how about Kevin Love for George Mikan?) Does Wallace or even Kevin Love have the ability to belong on a top 10 list? How about a top 50 list?

Since I am probably going to be the only person posting in here who saw Russell play, and is familiar with opinion back then, we need more help. So, look at the NBA top 50 at 50 years list:

http://www.nba.com/history/50greatest.html

Most of the people who selected these players saw them play and even played against them. So, let's take their word for it. This list made in 1996 at least gives us the top 50 in alphabetical order.

Now, of all the players I mentioned that played for Boston with Russell, Bill had 4 teammates make that list and he won multiple championships with them. Note, of course, they are all enshrined in the Hall of fame as players:

Bob Cousy
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman

In addition Russell had 4 more Hall of Famers on his teams, that were inducted as players:

http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-index/

Tommy Heinshon
Bailey Howell
KC Jones
Frank Ramsey

Check their stats if you haven't already: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/

Is it really any wonder how Russell won 11 championships in 13 years? THe no free agency thing didn't hurt either.

For me to say who had more or less help between Kobe and Duncan is pointless. Both sides have stated their cases and their isn't much left to say within that debate. I have said I think players should be ranked by position, or just a greatest list, no order.

No matter how much help either Tim or Kobe had or didn't have, as I said before, it's nowhere near the case that can be made for the help Russell had. As mentioned, recent public opinion has brought the stock of Russell up. Perhaps the fact that defense is getting recognition helped. People follow what other people say. I know a person that gambles on sports because his friends tell him who is going to win, or he looks at won loss records and makes his choices. In the 70's he told me he had a bet on the Vikings. I asked him how did he think Fran Tarkenton would do in the game. He didn't even know who that was. How can you make a choice if you don't know what's involved? It must be the 11 Rings thing, and Russell was the team leader. Now you know how stacked his teams really were.

So, if you want to put Russell in the top 10, you can't fight over the help Tim or Kobe had or didn't have. Logically, you must go by rings, with Russell ahead of Kobe, ahead of Tim.

If you want to move Russell out of the top 10, then it's easy to put Duncan ahead of Kobe. Just argue Tim did more with less than the other guys. 4 rings can be greater than 5 rings which can be greater than 11 rings.

It's kind of like a presidential elections. People split their votes fairly evenly and we hope history works out. Naturally, both candidates can make convincing arguements why their man should be commander in chief, just like Tim vs. Kobe.

See, history lessons are your friend! No matter who you prefer, you may now safely rank them either Russell, Kobe, Tim, or Tim, Kobe, Russell and be justified in your choice!

I'm interested to see what responses this brings.