Nuggets: Ty Lawson: Lakers are Easy Work

[ambchang]

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.

To be quite honest, I haven't really given much though in terms of ranking the players, but off the cuff, and this is not with much analysis or deep thought, I would rank the players below as definitely > Duncan:
Magic
Kareem
Jordan
Bird
Wilt
Russell

Players likely > Duncan:
Hakeem
Moses Malone

Players equal to Duncan:
Shaq
Oscar Robertson

Players equal to or slightly < Duncan:
Dr. J.
Jerry West

Players who are likely to surpass Duncan:
Lebron James

So I guess you are right, he is ranked somewhere between 6 to 10 in my books.

[Cry Havoc]

Players likely > Duncan:
Hakeem
Moses Malone

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 le was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

[pad300]

KillaKobe, the biggest flaw in your argument is the suggestion that Kobe has been the best player on a ring winning team. Highest scorer, sure, but there is more to the game than just scoring. He's never led any of the Lakers Championship teams in WS/48, or WS over the season, nor WP/48 and WP. Finally, if you look at PER, the 1st Pau Gasol ring, Kobe took the PER crown that year. None of these are perfect measurements of course - for example, they don't reflect defense at all well - but it's difficult to argue that he's been the best player on any of those teams. Gasol may not have been loud and showboaty, but neither is TD.
Realistically, Kobe's never accomplished anything significant without the best set of bigs in the league in front of him (Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Shaq, Horry, Horace Grant).

[Riddler]

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 le was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

Hakeem had less around him in the first championship run. I don't see how he isn't considered by some here to be clearly better.

[Killakobe81]

KillaKobe, the biggest flaw in your argument is the suggestion that Kobe has been the best player on a ring winning team. Highest scorer, sure, but there is more to the game than just scoring. He's never led any of the Lakers Championship teams in WS/48, or WS over the season, nor WP/48 and WP. Finally, if you look at PER, the 1st Pau Gasol ring, Kobe took the PER crown that year. None of these are perfect measurements of course - for example, they don't reflect defense at all well - but it's difficult to argue that he's been the best player on any of those teams. Gasol may not have been loud and showboaty, but neither is TD.
Realistically, Kobe's never accomplished anything significant without the best set of bigs in the league in front of him (Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Shaq, Horry, Horace Grant).

A couple of things:

1. You will never win an argument with me on stats ... And for the record I don't throw around Kobe's scoring either ... if you think you will convince me by posting win shares when there are other stats I could use that clearly favor Kobe over Pau ... that is a losing battle. In fact anyone that thinks Pau was more critical to the 09 and 2010 les pretty much doesnt know ball and I read your posts as a smh with amusement. I think stats just paint a picture but dont tell the whole story ...

2. I love rings above all ... but Role players like Horry, Kerr, Salley even Rodman etc get less credit than Magic, Kareem, Shaq Lebron etc.

3. I dont rank players retired before 1980. I love how dudes that are 30 are ranking players like Russell and Oscar ... Especially advanced metric dudes. League rules, predominantly white NBA etc. Makes judging those guys tricky ...and since I never saw them play I don't rank them. Read my post I said BEST I HAD EVER SEEN. I BARELY CAUGHT THE TAIL end of Kareem so my top 10 excludes cats that retired before 1980.

4. My Personal top 10 No order top of dome; MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Isiah ....

5. I know yall love Shaq but how in the world is he not more flawed as a top 10 player than any on this list? LOL. Not a great option in the last two minutes, poor FT shooter, horrible pnr defender, just as big an ego as Kobe or Lebron. He has been traded more than any player sniffing the top 10, has ALSO missed a playoffs and have been swept out of it more than probably any of the other players combined. Dont get me wrong at his best in 2000 he rivals the best of ANY of those 10 (including MJ) but to argue Kobe is the most flawed of any top 10 (as a player) is bull.

6. I dont factor things we cant track like leadership. Again I think Duncan APPEARS to be a great one. I also think he is someone ...many of us would prefer to play with based on demeanor etc. But I dont factor those types of intangibles ...if I did then I could make a strong case for Magic over MJ or Lebron over Kareem who were also by many accounts ty team-mates ...

7. I know Kobe shoots too much and is overrated defensively and the fact he can still play good defense from time to time is a worse indictment because he rarely does ... But because you dont LIKE a player is no reason to discredit his career. I just like to keep people accountable because they criticize Kobe or Lebron for things that they let slide on players they do like. In my youth I hated Bird, I did not even care much for MJ, Malone or Isiah. But those were kiddie feelings. Now that I am a man I occasionally will dislike the antics of a player like KG or Pierce but I respect their game. Including many of those same player I despised in my top 10 and the rest just outside (KG, Malone Pierce)

I will not debate Kobe vs. duncan until they both are retired, but I am paying attention to who can have a level-headed debate on the subject ... the list is quite small.

[thunderfan]

The second you think another NBA team is "easy work" is the second you're setting yourself up for failure. Only morons run their mouth like that.

[ambchang]

Obviously not that big of a deal, but I don't see how Hakeem can be clearly considered better than Duncan, given what both accomplished over the course of their careers. Yes, Hakeem's team was decimated by a number of factors, and he may have been the better player in a sterile environment, but in reality, Duncan has done far more, and I think his 2003 le was equal to Hakeem's second championship in terms of the team around him, or lack thereof. So the longevity argument, especially given this season, the championship argument, the winning % argument all go to Duncan. They split the "dominate by themselves" award, and the peak stats and best play in a relatively short span of time easily go to Hakeem. At worst for Tim, I think it's a toss-up.

As for Malone, it's hard to compare players from different eras, but give me Tim. Malone's stats are great, but the guy played in the fastest era of basketball ever and never had a game with more than 6 assists, and was all-nba first team on defense "only" 4 seasons.

That's why I had them as likely > Duncan. Hakeem got up there because of his amazing 94 95 runs, those runs were better than any runs Duncan ever had (except may be 03), and was just absolutely monstrous. On the other hand, he had that late 80's issue where he was a giant jerk and was labelled as a cancer on the Rockets. That said, I believe Duncan is easier to build around because of the way he plays the game, Hakeem was more dominant, and much better one on one player.

As for Malone, you should have seen him during his prime. He is, along with David Robinson, one of the most underrated players of all time. The way he man-handled Kareem during their face to face was phenomenal. Sure, he couldn't pass, talk properly, or defend very well, but there was not another more terrorizing player in the paint that Moses Malone in his prime.

At the end of the day, I can see why people will rank Duncan on the same level as those two players, or even a little above, but to me, Duncan comes slightly after them.

[ambchang]

A couple of things:

1. You will never win an argument with me on stats ... And for the record I don't throw around Kobe's scoring either ... if you think you will convince me by posting win shares when there are other stats I could use that clearly favor Kobe over Pau ... that is a losing battle. In fact anyone that thinks Pau was more critical to the 09 and 2010 les pretty much doesnt know ball and I read your posts as a smh with amusement. I think stats just paint a picture but dont tell the whole story ...

You just did, 5>4 is a stat.

2. I love rings above all ... but Role players like Horry, Kerr, Salley even Rodman etc get less credit than Magic, Kareem, Shaq Lebron etc.

So there are two kinds of players in the NBA, stars and role players (well, maybe three, useless ones like Mengke Bateer or Adam Morrison). The issue is that Kobe was clearly the lesser of the two during the 00-02 runs, and yet you somehow equate his contributions to those of Shaq just to bolster your claims that Kobe > Duncan. It's almost like you had the rankings in mind and then just randomly came up with some criteria to justify your rankings.

3. I dont rank players retired before 1980. I love how dudes that are 30 are ranking players like Russell and Oscar ... Especially advanced metric dudes. League rules, predominantly white NBA etc. Makes judging those guys tricky ...and since I never saw them play I don't rank them. Read my post I said BEST I HAD EVER SEEN. I BARELY CAUGHT THE TAIL end of Kareem so my top 10 excludes cats that retired before 1980.

4. My Personal top 10 No order top of dome; MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Isiah ....

5. I know yall love Shaq but how in the world is he not more flawed as a top 10 player than any on this list? LOL. Not a great option in the last two minutes, poor FT shooter, horrible pnr defender, just as big an ego as Kobe or Lebron. He has been traded more than any player sniffing the top 10, has ALSO missed a playoffs and have been swept out of it more than probably any of the other players combined. Dont get me wrong at his best in 2000 he rivals the best of ANY of those 10 (including MJ) but to argue Kobe is the most flawed of any top 10 (as a player) is bull.

Shaq's issue in the last two minutes is flawed. He was ranked top 10 in clutch scores in 02 or 03, when the stat was tracked. You foul Shaq in the last few minutes, and he has a 50% chance at making each FT, that is better than Kobe's career FG%. He missed the playoffs as a rookie, which was out of his prime.

Kobe, in 16 years, never learned to play with his teammates. In basketball, not being able to play team ball is about as flawed as you can get.

6. I dont factor things we cant track like leadership. Again I think Duncan APPEARS to be a great one. I also think he is someone ...many of us would prefer to play with based on demeanor etc. But I dont factor those types of intangibles ...if I did then I could make a strong case for Magic over MJ or Lebron over Kareem who were also by many accounts ty team-mates ...

7. I know Kobe shoots too much and is overrated defensively and the fact he can still play good defense from time to time is a worse indictment because he rarely does ... But because you dont LIKE a player is no reason to discredit his career. I just like to keep people accountable because they criticize Kobe or Lebron for things that they let slide on players they do like. In my youth I hated Bird, I did not even care much for MJ, Malone or Isiah. But those were kiddie feelings. Now that I am a man I occasionally will dislike the antics of a player like KG or Pierce but I respect their game. Including many of those same player I despised in my top 10 and the rest just outside (KG, Malone Pierce)

I will not debate Kobe vs. duncan until they both are retired, but I am paying attention to who can have a level-headed debate on the subject ... the list is quite small.

Not sure where you get the idea that I am discrediting Kobe because I dislike him. I don't really dislike him, and like I said over and over and over again, he would have been a fantastic Spur if he is willing to play second fiddle to Duncan. The issue with him is that he doesn't know his own limitations, and refuse to play accordingly. He is also overrated as as he requires the most dominant frontline every season for his team to be successful. And in 04 and this year so far, his teams have under achieved due to his selfish play.

Just logically speaking, Kobe and Shaq are both in your top 10, and yet they won 3 championships together. Over the same span, Duncan, the lone top 10 in your list won 2. Sort of tells you which of three is better, even using your own criteria.

[Killakobe81]

You just did, 5>4 is a stat.

So there are two kinds of players in the NBA, stars and role players (well, maybe three, useless ones like Mengke Bateer or Adam Morrison). The issue is that Kobe was clearly the lesser of the two during the 00-02 runs, and yet you somehow equate his contributions to those of Shaq just to bolster your claims that Kobe > Duncan. It's almost like you had the rankings in mind and then just randomly came up with some criteria to justify your rankings.



Shaq's issue in the last two minutes is flawed. He was ranked top 10 in clutch scores in 02 or 03, when the stat was tracked. You foul Shaq in the last few minutes, and he has a 50% chance at making each FT, that is better than Kobe's career FG%. He missed the playoffs as a rookie, which was out of his prime.

Kobe, in 16 years, never learned to play with his teammates. In basketball, not being able to play team ball is about as flawed as you can get.



Not sure where you get the idea that I am discrediting Kobe because I dislike him. I don't really dislike him, and like I said over and over and over again, he would have been a fantastic Spur if he is willing to play second fiddle to Duncan. The issue with him is that he doesn't know his own limitations, and refuse to play accordingly. He is also overrated as as he requires the most dominant frontline every season for his team to be successful. And in 04 and this year so far, his teams have under achieved due to his selfish play.

Just logically speaking, Kobe and Shaq are both in your top 10, and yet they won 3 championships together. Over the same span, Duncan, the lone top 10 in your list won 2. Sort of tells you which of three is better, even using your own criteria.

You make some great points. And as I said earlier my top 10 is very fluid. Lebron is currently at or near the bottom of that list but I have a sneaky su ion that he willbe closer to #1 than number 10 when all is said and done. I dont care about his stats ... he just has so much talent and I dont even know if he has fulfilled all of it. If let's say Lebron wins 3 rings with his two final appearances and incredible seasons ...I would put Lebron over Kobe and Duncan because to me if the players are close the rings would be the decidor. But I dont know if it will be close ... Lebron to me is that good, but who knows how well his game will age?

The thing is MY PERSONAL list doesnt have to be scientific or follow YOUR or anyone elses's logic. You may think it's flawed and that is fine. When everyone on that list is retired I will rank them, heck when Kobe and duncan finish I will slot them pending Lebron's career. For ME they are close many feel duncan is superior and plenty feel Kobe is ... that is why it is a good debate. We agree to disagree for now ...


BTW they you go with stats rings are not stats they are results. I watched Shaq pllay since college and saw every game of his minus 5 or 6 a seson for his whole Laker career. The leader you wish to credit was swept out of the playoffs repeatedly and would hide from teh ball on occasion in the clutch due to his poor FT shooting playiong hot potato ... no stat you can pull out of your ass is going to make me forget those moments.

[Koolaid_Man]

That's why I had them as likely > Duncan. Hakeem got up there because of his amazing 94 95 runs, those runs were better than any runs Duncan ever had (except may be 03), and was just absolutely monstrous. On the other hand, he had that late 80's issue where he was a giant jerk and was labelled as a cancer on the Rockets. That said, I believe Duncan is easier to build around because of the way he plays the game, Hakeem was more dominant, and much better one on one player.

As for Malone, you should have seen him during his prime. He is, along with David Robinson, one of the most underrated players of all time. The way he man-handled Kareem during their face to face was phenomenal. Sure, he couldn't pass, talk properly, or defend very well, but there was not another more terrorizing player in the paint that Moses Malone in his prime.

At the end of the day, I can see why people will rank Duncan on the same level as those two players, or even a little above, but to me, Duncan comes slightly after them.

you can do a million back flips, walk the great wall of China 100 times, jump out a plane with no parachute and be unharmed, scale the Empire State Building like Spider man....you could ing swear you are straight..none of that will change my mind nor the fact that it's

Kobe 5
TOSB 4

Live With That Homie Live With It

[rayjayjohnson]

The second you think another NBA team is "easy work" is the second you're setting yourself up for failure. Only morons run their mouth like that.

Thunderfan talking about running mouths. Oh the irony.

[ambchang]

Surprised it took this long for Koolaid Man to do a Giuseppe/Cully impersonation.

You are similar to Kobe in many ways, unoriginal, no idea of your own limitations, just that Kobe is better than anything you do by a factor of infinite.

[Brazil]

underrated thread, there are some good debates and points in there

[lefty]

Bump

Yeah Lawson lost to the Warriors tonight


But still

[Michael Jordan.]

My Ty doe

[Rogue]

It's always easy work when you don't give your opponents enough oxygen to breathe.

[lefty]

It's always easy work when you don't give your opponents enough oxygen to breathe.

That's what Kobe thought in 2003

[ElNono]

Ty with the connoisseur goods, tbh

[AchillesHeel]