Reply With Quote
"The Clippers dope as "
- Ty Lawson
more fuel on the burning assfire that is lakersground
"The Clippers dope as "
- Ty Lawson
Not worried I was a realist. Never expected this storm but I saw WCF as this team's ceiling ...I just never thought lottery was possible.
Game recognize game, son.
Lawson back at on dat drank. But I respek it, doe.
Kirby to drop 60 on the spurs
Flop city fans coming out of the woodwork, after years and years of disrespectful comments towards Billy Crystal, Frankie Muniz etc.
Have you considered changing the name of the site to lakerstalk.com?
Why does Lawson always look blazed off the court?
cause that's how a roll
Son I just remembered weed's legal over there
Flop City fans are actually disappearing in droves, as their team is currently 15-18 and just lost all their bigs...
gotta respect what he said because that is true ..........
those TMZ interviewers are always such cornballs lol
Who tha is Ty Lawson??
i can understand you not knowing who ty is. it's hard to see him when he blows by every pg in the league.
unfortunately cant disagree with a
Since this was addressed with direct reference to me, I guess I will have to respond.
First, by essentially saying that Kobe shall remain blameless with the Lakers' disappointment so far in the season based on a twist of my previous argument, are you saying that Kobe should get no credit for the 5 championships when evaluating his personal legacy?
Second, you are not completely getting my argument. My argument in terms of team accomplishments are strictly in the sense of championships, or at least teams going deep into the playoffs. A great player at the top of his game should be able to drag his team to the playoffs. The reason is because
a) winning a championship is a very different animal from making the playoffs
Winning a championship requires a team to be flawless, or at least being the team with the least exploitable flaws, in its construction, and/or favourable matchups. I assumed that, through reading your posts and arguing over the forum throughout the years, that you would know that. A team winning a championship and/or going deep into the playoffs is a matter of team construction, and most team constructions is done through building around one or two major stars. Some players are easier to build around (not being overly biased, but Duncan is one of those), while other require a particular group of players with specific skills to succeed (Dirk is an example).
Another factor is that winning a championship means you are, at least theoretically, the best of 30 teams, that is top 3.33% percentile. On the other hand, making the playoffs in either conference is a top 8 of 15 (that is around top 46/47th %). I suppose I require no further explanation to see how these two are different.
b) the playoffs and the regular season are very different - A team will be exploited in the playoffs because the opposition has much more time to prepare for your team. If your team, as a whole, has a weakness, it will be exploited. The Spurs in the mid 00's was a classic example, the philosophy is to give up the mid range jumper in exchange for rock solid defense on the three point and paint areas. Every single other team couldn't crack that code except the Mavs, because the Mavs had a excellent mid-range game. It is not a matter of one superstar willing the team to victory throughout a series, it is a collective effort.
The regular season, on the other hand, is different. Teams do not have as solid a game plan as they do in the playoffs, and superstars can go out and dominate a game and will a team to victories over the course of a regular season. Of course, if a team was horribly constructed, the opposition can exploit those mul ude of weaknesses and the team will still loose in the regular season, but as we know in the NBA, about half the team within any given season are horribly coached and disciplined, so there are about 50% of those given games that are winnable based solely on the effort on one or two superstar players.
In the case of Kobe Bryant, he is an amazing scorer, probably one of the best in the history of the league, and most definitely one of the most skillful ones. That said, his concept of team game is lacking. His credit in the early 00s were largely exaggerated over the years. Anyone who had watched the 00's Lakers knew they were Shaq's team. The offense was designed around Shaq, and the opposition prepare their game plan against Shaq. Ignorant viewers looking at Kobe's numbers over one series (namely 01 vs. the Spurs) and offered it as some kind of proof that Kobe was on equal footing with Shaq, but we all know it's because the Spurs had a very notable weakness, and that is they had horrible perimeter defenders until they got Bowen, and KFC was smart enough to exploit that.
In the late 00's, the Lakers once again won two championships, all credit was heaped on Kobe, but people refuse to acknowledge the importance of other matchups. Gasol was about the perfect fit for Kobe, very skilled, sometimes even dominant player, who has no interest in being the alpha dog. He goes in, does his job, and doesn't worry about getting credit. Gasol in the middle of the paint, along with Odom and sometimes Bynum was easily the best frontline of the NBA during that timespan. Both Gasol and Odom are excellent passing big man, and it was a nightmare for other teams to match up. In other words, this was a perfectly constructed team, and was largely a nightmare for other teams because of a dominant frontline.
Kobe was, and in some respects, still is, a very entertaining player to watch, but his ball-dominant ways have cost the Lakers a few very winnable championships, and his lack of team concept has created some very under-achieving teams (04 to 07, this year). People tend to brush them aside and ignore them when evaluating his personal achievement, and I disagree with that.
Dont have time (at the moment) for a longer retort but my point is he gets a huge chunk of both sides the glory and blame for the lakers success or lack there of in my book. I just find it funny (not just you) that when players fans like win, they get so much of the credit but with players that they dislike they work hard to come up with qualifiers when they win (cant win without shaq, Phil, Fisher etc.). Lebron is a perfect example I gave him some flack for Leaving the cavs because I do think it was only a matter of time that he won ... he is THAT good. But when he did win, I did not say he needed Wade or hot 3 point shooting he won period. Same for dirk, I did not say he was Tyson dependent. Ditto Wade etc. To me the best player on a championship team deserves most of (not all) of the credit for winning. And some blame when they lose too ... it is part of his legacy if they fail ... but hardly defines it. I still would give him an edge over Duncan (but duncan can change that with a strong Finals run) but it's why he is not in the class of MJ and Magic. And I would consider bumping back Duncan over Kobe ... since both look liek they have plenty left to show ... one more quick note how is getting in to the playoffs and getting beat in the first round ...make this season any less of a failure? So the weak eastern teams that make the playoffs are a success? I should take one (possibly two) missed playoff seasons over a body of work with 5 rings and two more finals appearances?
Duncan was the best player on 4 championship teams while Kobe was the best player on 2, so using your logic, why do you rank Duncan lower than Kobe?
For a great player, making the playoffs is not a success, it's simply an avoidance of failure. In the history of the league, the only top 10 player who ever missed the playoffs in the prime is Kareem, and that is during the dark ages of the league with drug overdoses. The other one, arguably, was Hakeem, but we all know how drugs and injuries decimated that Rockets team.
If you think the best player on a championship team gets most or all of the credit, then Shaq should get most/all of the credit in 00, 01 and 02, leaving little for Kobe, and it all but shot your argument of 5>4 to .
Does a great player require a great team to win the championship? Sure, there have been no precedence otherwise. Even the 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets were built specifically around their respective superstars.
Does a great team require a great player to win a championship? Most of the time, but the 04 Pistons, 78/79 Bullets/Sonics proved otherwise (you can argue 89/90 Pistons, but Isiah Thomas, when on, was a legit superstar, and top 15 all time material).
Does a team require a great player to get into the playoffs? No, it has happened year after year that teams without legit superstars get into the playoffs.
Does a great player require a great team to get into the playoffs? No, no great player have missed the playoffs in his prime other than Kareem in the mid 70s (and aforementioned Hakeem), and as mentioned earlier, those were the dark ages of the league where drugs over took the league. Not to mention ABA taking away legitimate talent away from the league. If anything, it was an aberration in the history of the league. On top of that, there was legitimate reasons for the Bucks/Lakers missing the playoffs those two years.
In 74, KAJ missed 16 games due to injuries. Kareem missed the first 16 games of the season, and the Bucks finished 3-13 in those games. Taking those games away, the Bucks were on a 44-game win season pace, enough to leap-frog Detroit and Sonics for a tied for 2nd place finish with the Kings that season.
The following season, KAJ was traded to the Lakers who essentially missed the playoffs because of the whacked out division system back in the day. They actually finished with the 4th best record in the West that year, but lost out because they were also the fourth best in their division. Lesser teams in the Bucks and Pistons actually made the playoffs because of the whacky seeding format, and the Lakers still finished 4 out of the 9 teams (top half).
.......an they still lose by 20
Again limited time, but my point about best player is diffrent when the teams have 2 HOF stars. MAgic and Kareem bothe get credit for the le in 1980. Kareem (like Shaq) was clearly the best player in 1980 but no way they win without heavy contributions from Magic. And the story is teh same for Shaquille. A great as player as Shaq was he does not win 4 rings without outstanding performances from Kobe & Wade. I have no problems agreeing with you that Duncan was a bigger part of his 4 than Kobe was for most of his 5. But when you rank palyers all-time, the regular seasons, matter even the Finals losses matter ...which detract (slightly) from Kobe. But look amb we have done this dance before. Like i said both are not done and I reserve the right to change my stance again. if duncan were to lead the Spurs over a prime Lebron that matters to me a great deal. At the time I nudged Kobe over Duncan was back after the 08-10 seasons when though duncan never missed teh playoffs his game had slipped. This year he looks like the best center and if he leads his team even to a Finals loss to the HEat it definitely helps open up that debate for me. Right now I still lean Kobe but I have maintained it was close. I thought Kobe had moved clearly ahead as Duncan declined but this year duncan is moving back to a closer race. When they are both done we can have a great debate about it. I consider them two of the 10 best players I have ever seen there is no shame in having healthy debate on two great players.
That's the best thing right now. Kobe pissed off would be hilarious with his team right now. He'd score 60 a night and they'd lose by an average of 30 points.
Of course Shaq doesn't win four with Kobe and Wade, he won't win four without Phil Jackson, Horry, Fisher and Haslem either. Which brings us back to the point of teams winning championships, not individuals, and it supports my point rather than yours.
Your concept of saying Kobe's part in the 5 is less than Duncan's part in 4, and yet Kobe > Duncan because he has one more ring is confusing and contradictory. It may work for you, but I doubt anybody else who is objective will have any way of grasping your logic.
Sure, Kobe has longevity part locked up. There has simply been no SG in the history of the league who has that level of longevity in the history of the league, but then we don't judge individual greatness based on longevity alone, just as Karl Malone will never be the greatest PF because he had 18 excellent seasons plus a few very good ones.
Duncan, to me, is a borderline top 10, somewhere around 8 to 12, and the line is murky there. Kobe, to be, is at best 12 to 15. If you put him in the top 10, he will be, by far, the most flawed top 10 player of the list.
I have Duncan at #7 or #6, depending on where I decide to put Bill Russell. I don't see how you could put Tim lower than #9 at this point in his career.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
