Yeah, I tried to reduce the game to 2nd options when in my OP I clearly stated:Meanwhile here we are in your thread that you created in order to reduce the game to "2nd options." Did you forget that your entire creation here is a vastly reduced understanding of the game, with all those "variables" ignored in order pump up Tim Duncan? Funny isn't it?
"Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact."
Next time, read my post in its entirety before commenting. What likely happened is seeing the name "Kobe" triggered your primal defense mechanisms and you started frothing at the mouth and slapping the keyboard without fully thinking things through. Typical behavior of a Kobe zealot.
No qualms there. I had the Lakers as the greatest franchise of all time when they were sitting at 14 rings, primarily because they never experienced a similar drought that the Celtics did from 88 to 2008. One thing we don't like to admit is that winning a championship takes a bit of luck, so consistency, like making the playoffs every year and frequently posting strong regular season records, should be valued for something.That's because the Lakers are the only franchise to have enjoyed success over 5 separate generations, have a lot more Finals appearances, better winning percentages, didn't have a long stretch of missing the playoffs, etc.
Moreover more "experts" only acknowledged the Lakers now because they just beat the Celtics, moving within one le. Had the Celtics won that series and were sitting with 18 vs the Lakers 15 you sure as can bet the vast majority would still pick the Celtics.
But greatest was not achieved by Boston Green this past year... a lot has changed in a year, I just hope everyone has the intelligence to understand how.
Yep. Just like a Kobe fan, always looking at PPG first and the other stats later. Duncan has the 5th highest playoff PER of all time (and again, all PER is taking the elements of the game that can be measured, adjusting for pace, and arriving at a number). Duncan's combined playoff stats, hard stats not advanced, are better than Larry Bird's (even when you remove his later years), Karl Malone's, Patrick Ewing's, David Robinson's Your Lover's, and a few others. Not to mention being one of the best defensive anchors to ever play the game.For the sake of this conversation, Tim Duncan was never impressive statistically. Quite the opposite in fact.
I can, but we'd just be going around in circles. This topic has been argued ad nauseum and simply comes down to opinion. You'd take the guard, I'd take the bigman, not because Tim Duncan is a Spur, but because I think bigmen are inherently more valuable to playoff success than perimeter players.You haven't made a strong case for either, especially considering how things have shaped up amid the most recent evidence.
Considering your posting history, on here and the ESPN boards, everything leads me to believe that you're a Kobe/Laker fan first, basketball fan second.It was about the game first and they did not respect the game and that's all the beef was ever about, just like it is here with you and you embarrassingly stupid thread le.
Get along with History?
Nah. Terrible poster.
you're too wound up, brah
Not really. I'm discussing basketball with him, putting thought into my replies, even in the face of him being a complete re . I'm basically invoking Findog and Jam here. Instead of being an asshole and trolling, work them over in a debate.
Re ed points/observations he's made in this discussion:
- Accused me of "reducing the game to 2nd options" with the purpose of propping up Tim Duncan over Kobe Bryant. However, the 2nd option angle was simply to demonstrate the team dynamics of basketball and winning a championship, which led to me clearly stating,"Championships are a team accomplishment."
- That head-to-head team records somehow influence an individual player debate.
- Making excuses for the 4-0 sweep of his Lakers at the hands of the Spurs in 99.
I'm simply having fun seeing what idiotic reply he'll type out next.
- Accused me of "reducing the game to 2nd options" with the purpose of propping up Tim Duncan over Kobe Bryant. However, the 2nd option angle was simply to demonstrate the team dynamics of basketball and winning a championship, which led to me clearly stating,"Championships are a team accomplishment."
- Agreed, team accomplishment.
In most cases it doesn't.- That head-to-head team records somehow influence an individual player debate.
- Making excuses for the 4-0 sweep of his Lakers at the hands of the Spurs in 99.
Lakers were young and stupid, not quite ready for the moment. Spurs were great in the playoffs that year (15-2 IIRC).
As for the last point, we can all make excuses for our teams didn't advance in a given year. I just prefer to say, "The better team won," unlike this History cat who is doing everything possible to discredit the Spurs victory that year.
Yeah, and I know I talk about the Lakers and act in similar way, but that's primarily to troll dumb s like KoolAIDS and go at Lakaluva. Good Lakers fans like yourself often wind up in the crossfire in those debates.
no worries
As for the last point, we can all make excuses for our teams didn't advance in a given year. I just prefer to say, "The better team won," unlike this History cat who is doing everything possible to discredit the Spurs victory that year.
Yeah, and I know I talk about the Lakers and act in similar way, but that's primarily to troll dumb s like KoolAIDS and go at Lakaluva. Good Lakers fans like yourself often wind up in the crossfire in those debates.
If we use generalizations, I'd agree that you should take a very good big man over a very good perimeter player most of the time. But it's obviously not an absolute. Michael Jordan as the exception itself shows that sometimes the greatness of a player will transcend over a general rule of thumb by winning with average big man in an era of the NBA with a lot of great big men.
If two players are relatively equal, use that general rule of thumb and take the big man. I would never begrudge someone saying they'd take Duncan over Kobe. But do you take KG over Kobe? Do you take? Dirk over Kobe? Dwight Howard over Kobe? Maybe some would. But there are those exceptions of great perimeter players who have the type of talent you'd take over a very good big man.
I wouldn't begrudge anyone taking Kobe over Duncan either. I think both have proven to be dominant players teams can build championship teams around. Both need help to win championships. But both can be franchise centerpieces that win les.
"As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series."
" what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy. "
LMFAO!!
What kind of moron are you? You think it's all a media influenced conspiracy to make us believe championships are an individual accomplishment?
Should the greatest players be established by the ridiculous moronic advanced statistics community?? Hahaha!
Let me make my position clear here: Rings absolutely positively shape individual legacies. Of course it does. It always has and always will. This is not a modern day fad that is "en vogue" which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on a sports message board. It is the ultimate accomplishment, something that can only be achieved by individuals who embody and embrace what it means to great.
In some cases, some really really good players end up never winning and yes their legacies suffer as a consequence (Malone, Barkley, Baylor, Stockton). Sometimes a great player will only achieve that ultimate level of success once in their lifetime (West, Robertson, Garnett)
And then there are those players who win several times that really achieve greatness (Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem) who really separate themselves from the rest of the pack.
And then every so often there are players who can win multiple times consecutively even after having to entirely rebuild the team around them (Jordan, Russell, Kobe).
These particularly players proved that they can be a big part of winning championships (which is the goal of playing the game) over and over again even as the pieces around them rotated. That is the very definition of greatness.
Where did I post "PPG" provide a link and quote please.
Nothing to do with bigs vs smalls. Has to do with game vs. game.
You clearly don't read much nor is your comprehension very strong then. It's the same reason why I, on the Laker board as you already admitted, went against Laker fans in saying Duncan was superior to Shaq several years ago. The same reason why I admit Russell is better than Wilt.
[QUOTE=history2b;4703687]And what kind of moron are you to think that the media, along with Madison Avenue, doesn't have a vested interest in marketing individual players? What's going to sell more: A Lakers jersey with no name on the back, or a Lakers jersey with "Bryant" on the back? Do consumers buy Lakers shoes? Or do they buy Kobe Mark V, or whatever the his latest shoe is called? Jesus Christ, how naive can you be to believe that the media doesn't influence the public's perception of sports. Ask Bill Russell, ask Tim Duncan, ask Magic why they won. Their replies, "I was on some great teams."
What kind of moron are you? You think it's all a media influenced conspiracy to make us believe championships are an individual accomplishment?
Here you go again. When you look at things with cold, hard logic, individual impact can go so far before other factors begin to positively or negatively influence the outcome. Think about it. Dirk is labeled as a "choker," but if Josh Howard came to play against Miami, Dirk would suddenly be vaulted up in the all time great rankings and that label would disappear, even if his individual stats didn't change one iota. That's how silly and absurd the "rings argument" is.Let me make my position clear here: Rings absolutely positively shape individual legacies. Of course it does. It always has and always will. This is not a modern day fad that is "en vogue" which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on a sports message board. It is the ultimate accomplishment, something that can only be achieved by individuals who embody and embrace what it means to great.
When I used to debate Tim Duncan vs. Karl Malone, I never copped out with the "rings argument." I pointed to Malone's significant drop in FG% from the regular season to the post-season, as well as a decline in his other stats, while showing how Duncan remained consistent across the board, improving his output in most categories. Never did I say, "Duncan 4 rings, Malone 0. Har, har, har." That's an intellectually lazy position to take. If you're going to compare individual players, compare them individually.
And supporting casts had nothing to with the winning of those championships or lackthereof :rollseyesIn some cases, some really really good players end up never winning and yes their legacies suffer as a consequence (Malone, Barkley, Baylor, Stockton). Sometimes a great player will only achieve that ultimate level of success once in their lifetime (West, Robertson, Garnett)
And then there are those players who win several times that really achieve greatness (Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem) who really separate themselves from the rest of the pack.
And then every so often there are players who can win multiple times consecutively even after having to entirely rebuild the team around them (Jordan, Russell, Kobe).
These particularly players proved that they can be a big part of winning championships (which is the goal of playing the game) over and over again even as the pieces around them rotated. That is the very definition of greatness.
You implied it. You said Duncan's stats are not impressive, when in truth, they are impressive aside from PPG.Where did I post "PPG" provide a link and quote please.
Big and smalls play fundamentally different games. I don't even really like comparing guards with bigmen. To me, it's like comparing a quarterback to a running back, but sometimes I can't help indulging myself in these kind of useless debates.Nothing to do with bigs vs smalls. Has to do with game vs. game.
You can be a Kobe-zealot, but as long as you're consistent, I'll have no issue. Fine, you believe rings provide a tangible real world boost to an individual player's legacy, but I just hope you can extrapolate that POV with consistency when comparing other players.You clearly don't read much nor is your comprehension very strong then. It's the same reason why I, on the Laker board as you already admitted, went against Laker fans in saying Duncan was superior to Shaq several years ago. The same reason why I admit Russell is better than Wilt.
So is Shaq higher on the all-time list than Wilt? Is Duncan higher than Hakeem, Oscar, or Bird?
Oh, and I'm looking at many top ten lists right now, and every one so far has Wilt higher than Russell.
Now, remember, I am one of the few Russell endorsers on this board, so I don't agree, but it goes to show you that rings ain't everything.
Links were supposed to be provided...
Lol, does it matter?
I know how your mind works. You just dismiss the credibility of any POV that isn't compatible with yours.
midnight, we've tussled before, but I think we both agree we know a lot about the game.
My own belief is big men are more valuable than guards or forwards. Also, it is extremely difficult to compare bigs to smalls because they play a completely different game.
Big man on offense, think prime Chamberlain, Abdul Jabbar, or Shaq as constant scoring threats. You need a big to try to slow them down and contest for rebounds. Few smalls could do that, think Wes Unseld for one. It's rare a center guards a wing man, unless he's an outside threat, think Jerry Lucas for the Knicks in 1972.
It's rare a center participates in the fast break. He gets the rebound and throws an outlet pass and the little guys run while he trots back. Think Bill Russell. Or he gets integrated into the half court offense, think Wilt.
Smalls guard smalls. Sometimes forwards guard guards, think Pippen on Magic 1991 finals. A small forward or shooting guard can get you a lot of points in a hurry, just as a dominating center can. Think Robertson, Baylor, West, Erving, Gervin, Bird, Wade, Bryant, or James. Virtually the only time they meet the opposing center is driving to the rim. Shaq, and Kareem fouled out many games, Wilt averaged 2 fouls per game and never fouled out.
I have Duncan ahead of Russell all time. Put Tim in the Chamberlain/Russell era as a center and he would rebound just as well as either and score closer to Wilt than to Russell.
Bigs make the game go, you build around them. Think Boston trading for Russell's draft rights. Conversely, think Portland drafting Bowie and Oden over Jordan and Durant. Now those were bad picks because the centers they picked were busts, and the players they passed on were elite superstars, but it didn't have to be that way. If they were healthy, it could have been great. Remember, Hakeem was picked ahead of Jordan as well and Houston did well with him.
It's easy to see Tim is > Kobe even with one less ring. I myself think Kobe needs at least 7 rings to have a chance to convince people he's the best Laker over Magic. If Kobe rings that many times and Tim doesn't, he'll probably be remembered as > Tim, but it won't be for awhile. Even with 7 rings, that really doesn't make him much better though does it? He's still the same player, he just had the right teammates.
Can't say I disagree with anything.
We disagree on Russell's all-time status, but I totally understand your argument. It relates to my point that rings are a team accomplishment that in today's culture are being ostensibly reduced to an individual accomplishment. This moron History says it's always been like that, but if it was, then why did Jerry West win a Finals MVP in a losing effort?
You were alive back then. Before the advertising blitz, were individual players afforded more status because they won rings? I've read many times that the prevailing opinion during Russell's dominance was that, despite Russell winning rings, Oscar, Wilt, and to an extent, West, were considered better players.
I have a thread I made about a top 20 all time that didn't get much activity, I'll repeat some of what I said there and elsewhere.
History tells us offense is what shaped opinion on basketball in the early days. Boston, and later UCLA, figured out defense was the key because it created more offensive opportunities. When those dynasties faded, none took their place, basketball began a trend towards parity, at least for awhile. Defense became more valued.
The NBA used to have a territorial draft pick. The idea was a team could reserve a local college star for their first round pick, thus help them at the gate. Tommy Heinsohn and Oscar Robertson were selected this way, among many others.
For what it's worth, the Harlem Globetrotters helped spread the love for the game, and that was all offense; primarily ball movement and trick shots.
Boston players, such as Cousy and Havlicek were considered greater than Russell in that era. Offense, and racism, especially by Bostonians, were the prevalent choices for greatness. As mentioned, an NBA top 10 all time in 1970 would start with Wilt and include Robertson, Baylor, West, Greer, Pettet, Cousy, and Mikan before Russell was even considered. His lack of an offensive game lowered his status. As Jamstone said, he could be replaced by Ben Wallace, who clearly is not top 10 all time. All those other players were all about offense.
Rings to determine greatness. I disagree with the value of this, let's look at history. In 1969 it was Russell 11, Mikan 5. Mikan is on no one's top 10 NBA. In 1985, Kareem got to 4, Magic to 3, and Bird had 2. Those three stopped ringing in 1988, and it was 6, 5, 3 by then. It took until 1998 for Jordan to reach 6 rings. So, the ring argument is recent. In 1969 West beasted the finals and deserved the MVP. I have him ahead of Kobe on my top 20 all time, see the thread I mention. I also have Oscar at #6, although he only rang once. I still don't think Shaq belongs on a top 10 all time, but he's there for now. Other players who once were rock solid top 10's have fallen out, so will many current ones we have selected, eventually. Top 10 lists don't show enough, top 20's do, at least for now.
No matter how many rings LeBron ends up with, he may be the only active player capable of getting into a GOAT argument at the close of his career. Wilt with only 2 rings is many people's first choice.
Yeah, history2B is way off base about most everything he rabbles. I forgot more about basketball than he thinks he knows.
Good stuff
Very, very true.
Blinded by his intense and passionate love for Kobe.
Lol
2 guys who don't know the game agreeing? Gee what a surprise.
Lol, presentation of evidence without citation of sources is called what in academia?
"does it matter?" Lol
I read on a website that Tim Duncan is a raging sexual and they had video evidence of this...
What? You want a link?
Does it matter? I know how your brain works. You'll defend Duncan and pretend it didn't happen.
If I provide the links that have Wilt over Russell on the all-time list, will you leave this forum forever?
Yes or no?
Simple question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
