Mavs: Dirk: "Kobe the best player in the last 15 years, Duncan the best PF ever."

[Molotov]

mid doing work on these kobe riders

[Deuce Bigalow]

Get "what?"

That you don't have an effective counterargument?

And fail by mentioning Kareem, Magic (don't know why you bring him up since he was the man on 4 le teams, and some would say he was the man from the first day he put on his Lakers uniform) or Bird. Those players were from different eras. Also Bird vs. Duncan on the all-time list is a very, very debatable issue. Yeah, yeah Bird vs. Magic rescued the NBA and all that, but what hurts Bird in his case against Duncan or Shaq or even your hero (some have ranked Kobe over Bird all-time) is that back injuries cut his career short and he was pretty much done as a top player by '88. Still very good, but nowhere near prime form.

Duncan and Kobe are from this era, and as it stands, Duncan has been the "man" on more le teams, won more Finals MVPs, is considered the better defender, and has better overall playoff stats than Kobe.

What don't I "get?"

Oh, I know, I don't worship PPG, like yourself.

You want me to buy Kobe over Duncan, prove it to me. Right now, ALL the facts work in my favor.

We have already gone through this before. Kobe played great in the 2001 Playoffs. 32/6/7 on 49FG while LA swept the Western Conference 11-0. 35/9/4 vs Kings, 33/7/7 vs Spurs, both teams had a defensive rating below 100 in th regular season. He didn't win Finals MVP, and because of that you don't give him credit. Shaq was on Kobe's team. How many players in NBA history are better than a prime Shaq? You can count them on your hand, or its even arguable that only MJ is better. Why does Kobe's rings not count because he had a better player on his team? In the 2001 and 2002 Plqyoff combined, Kobe was the leading scorer in 18/35 games and 4/8 series, and led the Lakere in apg. Kobe led the lakers in 4th quarter scoring and 2nd half scoring both those years as well. How does that ring not count? Look, the Kobe-Duncan position on the all time list is close and both can be ahead of each other. But the argument you make for why Duncan is better is just arrogant and misinformed.

[ElNono]

Discredit him for les he won as a sidekick even though it's never done to Kareem, Magic, Bird, or even Shaq in 2006.

The exception I would take with this is that, at least in the case of Shaq, I don't recall him mouthing off with Miami being "his team", etc. Kirby loves to run his mouth to appear to be the leader, and it really backfires every time. Even when he won les, it's all about him even though either he coattailed or he had to be bailed out by teammates from what could've been historically embarrassing performances. Heck, he *had* those too. In 2004 he single-handedly cost the Lakers a le. In 2008 his Lakers team still hold the record for worst NBA Finals loss in history.

One other issue with him (and that's not necessarily all his fault) is that ESPN decided they needed to sell Kirby-as-the-next-Jordan 24/7. So while he's extremely talented, he's also easily the most overrated player in the past 15 years. And the truth is he likes to play into that. He mouths off on the media about teammates, coaches, management, etc etc etc. He's absolutely made.

[Deuce Bigalow]

The exception I would take with this is that, at least in the case of Shaq, I don't recall him mouthing off with Miami being "his team", etc. Kirby loves to run his mouth to appear to be the leader, and it really backfires every time. Even when he won les, it's all about him even though either he coattailed or he had to be bailed out by teammates from what could've been historically embarrassing performances. Heck, he *had* those too. In 2004 he single-handedly cost the Lakers a le. In 2008 his Lakers team still hold the record for worst NBA Finals loss in history.

One other issue with him (and that's not necessarily all his fault) is that ESPN decided they needed to sell Kirby-as-the-next-Jordan 24/7. So while he's extremely talented, he's also easily the most overrated player in the past 15 years. And the truth is he likes to play into that. He mouths off on the media about teammates, coaches, management, etc etc etc. He's absolutely made.

You blame Kobe for the losses but when they won les its just a team accomplishment. Their loss in 2004 and 2008 was because the team was outplayed and the other team beat them, not Kobe. Don't teams win and lose? Last time I checked there is not a team called "Kobe Bryant".

[whitemamba]

sup duece, hows the gigalo business now days

[Molotov]

The exception I would take with this is that, at least in the case of Shaq, I don't recall him mouthing off with Miami being "his team", etc. Kirby loves to run his mouth to appear to be the leader, and it really backfires every time. Even when he won les, it's all about him even though either he coattailed or he had to be bailed out by teammates from what could've been historically embarrassing performances. Heck, he *had* those too. In 2004 he single-handedly cost the Lakers a le. In 2008 his Lakers team still hold the record for worst NBA Finals loss in history.

One other issue with him (and that's not necessarily all his fault) is that ESPN decided they needed to sell Kirby-as-the-next-Jordan 24/7. So while he's extremely talented, he's also easily the most overrated player in the past 15 years. And the truth is he likes to play into that. He mouths off on the media about teammates, coaches, management, etc etc etc. He's absolutely made.

the goods, tbh

[ElNono]

You blame Kobe for the losses but when they won les its just a team accomplishment. Their loss in 2004 and 2008 was because the team was outplayed and the other team beat them, not Kobe. Don't teams win and lose? Last time I checked there is not a team called "Kobe Bryant".

Not at all. Shaq should get the credit for the first 3 les, and Kobe gets credit for the other 2 (despite having to get bailed out by Metta and Pau in multiple occasions)

And while it's true the team isn't called "Kobe Bryant", it's indeed him that mouths off that it's "his" team. The leader act just doesn't fly with him.

[Deuce Bigalow]

sup duece, hows the gigalo business now days

[whitemamba]

sexy

[Deuce Bigalow]

Not at all. Shaq should get the credit for the first 3 les, and Kobe gets credit for the other 2 (despite having to get bailed out by Metta and Pau in multiple occasions)

And while it's true the team isn't called "Kobe Bryant", it's indeed him that mouths off that it's "his" team. The leader act just doesn't fly with him.

Wait, Shaq gets all the credit while he had a teammate that averaged 29/7/6 and 27/6/5, lakers leading scorer in 18/35 games, leading scorer in 4/8 series, and the leading scorer in the 4th quarter and 2nd halfs in the 01 and 02 Playoffs.

While in 09 and 10 Kobe was "bailed out" by 19/11 and 20/11 Pau and 11/3/4 Metta while Kobe averages 30/5/6 and 29/6/6 and was the lakers leader in points and assists in every single series, and 4th quarter and 2nd half scoring?

[whitemamba]

Wait, Shaq gets all the credit while he had a teammate that averaged 29/7/6 and 27/6/5, lakers leading scorer in 18/35 games, leading scorer in 4/8 series, and the leading scorer in the 4th quarter and 2nd halfs in the 01 and 02 Playoffs.

While in 09 and 10 Kobe was "bailed out" by 19/11 and 20/11 Pau and 11/3/4 Metta while Kobe averages 30/5/6 and 29/6/6 and was the lakers leader in points and assists in every single series, and 4th quarter and 2nd half scoring?

this, anyone who says kobe got "bailed" out simply was not watching the games. just kobe being on the floor even if he doesnt take a shot, is a threat. saying anything else is laughable..

[ElNono]

Wait, Shaq gets all the credit while he had a teammate that averaged 29/7/6 and 27/6/5, lakers leading scorer in 18/35 games, leading scorer in 4/8 series, and the leading scorer in the 4th quarter and 2nd halfs in the 01 and 02 Playoffs.

who do you think was getting triple-teamed every possession? Once Shaq left town it was " trade me or get me help "

Shaq was simply the best, most dominant player on those teams. Kirby was simply the beneficiary of that. In other word, classical coattailing.

While in 09 and 10 Kobe was "bailed out" by 19/11 and 20/11 Pau and 11/3/4 Metta while Kobe averages 30/5/6 and 29/6/6 and was the lakers leader in points and assists in every single series, and 4th quarter and 2nd half scoring?

Metta doesn't make that clutch shot (in the WCF, IIRC) and it's over. You only have to look at today's Gasol to see how good was 09-10 Gasol. Remember 6-24? Complete bailout.

He does get the credit for those two though, because he was the focus of the offense (the proverbial 'man').



This isn't up for discussion, tbh.

[Deuce Bigalow]

who do you think was getting triple-teamed every possession? Once Shaq left town it was " trade me or get me help "

Shaq was simply the best, most dominant player on those teams. Kirby was simply the beneficiary of that. In other word, classical coattailing.



Metta doesn't make that clutch shot (in the WCF, IIRC) and it's over. You only have to look at today's Gasol to see how good was 09-10 Gasol. Remember 6-24? Complete bailout.

He does get the credit for those two though, because he was the focus of the offense (the proverbial 'man').



This isn't up for discussion, tbh.

Yup leading your team in points and assists through the Western Conference is "classical coattail riding"

2001 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 31.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.3 APG, .492 FG%
Shaq - 29.3 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 2.5 APG, .547 FG%


2002 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.4 APG, .418 FG%
Shaq - 26.4 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 2.6 APG, .510 FG%

Everyone knows Shaq was the better player btw.

[midnightpulp]

We have already gone through this before. Kobe played great in the 2001 Playoffs. 32/6/7 on 49FG while LA swept the Western Conference 11-0. 35/9/4 vs Kings, 33/7/7 vs Spurs, both teams had a defensive rating below 100 in th regular season. He didn't win Finals MVP, and because of that you don't give him credit. Shaq was on Kobe's team. How many players in NBA history are better than a prime Shaq? You can count them on your hand, or its even arguable that only MJ is better. Why does Kobe's rings not count because he had a better player on his team? In the 2001 and 2002 Plqyoff combined, Kobe was the leading scorer in 18/35 games and 4/8 series, and led the Lakere in apg. Kobe led the lakers in 4th quarter scoring and 2nd half scoring both those years as well. How does that ring not count? Look, the Kobe-Duncan position on the all time list is close and both can be ahead of each other. But the argument you make for why Duncan is better is just arrogant and misinformed.

Beside the point. Main point is that Duncan, even though he wasn't as good as Shaq during the 3 peat (strangely enough, Duncan played Shaq to a wash in '01, '02, and '04, and has outplayed Shaq overall in the playoffs: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...playoffs::none), was better as a first option on the Spurs than Kobe was as a second option on the Lakers.

Duncan's first le run: 23.2ppg, 11.5rpg, 2.8apg, 2.6blk, on .511 is better than Kobe's first le run of: 21.1ppg, 4.5rpg, 4.4apg, 1.5blk on .430

Duncan's second le run: 24.7ppg, 15.4rpg, 5.3apg, 3.3blk on .529 is better than Kobe's second le run of: 29.4ppg, 7.3rpg, 6.1apg, 1.6stl on .469.

Duncan's third le run: 23.6ppg, 12.3rpg, 2.7apg, 2.3blk on .464 is better than Kobe's third le run of: 26.6ppg, 5.8rpg, 4.6apg, 1.2stl on .434 (these two lines are close, though, but I give the edge to Duncan for his defensive presence. Fact is, a big man's defensive presence simply impacts the game more than a perimeter player's).

No one said "Kobe's rings don't count," but when you're comparing players, it's the lead dog championships that are always considered. It's the way it's worked since the first NBA championship was won and I don't get why Kobe fans think he should be exempt from that standard. Yes, he was very good during the 3 peat, but he was still Pippen to Shaq's Jordan, and was not the engine behind the Lakers in those days. Those teams were built around Shaq, opposing teams built their primary defensive gameplan around stopping Shaq, and Kobe, as much as some Kobe fans hate to admit it, benefited greatly from playing off of him (which is why Manu didn't win the Finals MVP in '05. Reason he was able to go off at times was because of the attention Duncan was drawing from Sheed and Wallace inside. They would collapse on Tim, who would make a pass to Manu cutting in from the weakside or the top of the key. Or the open 3s he would get because of double teams on Duncan. And Duncan set countless picks for Manu to free him up).

Remember what happened when Kobe tried to become the "lead dog" in '04 against the Pistons? The reason he failed so massively (Pistons' defense notwithstanding) is because the offense was still built around Shaq and Kobe going iso every possession was incompatible with Jackson's philosophy at the time. The Lakers looked lost not running the offense through Shaq. This is why we tend to "give more credit" to lead dog championships, because the lead dog is the guy the team is centered around.

It's not about bashing Kobe's 3 peat les, it's about giving lead dog championships more credit because they simply deserve more.

[ElNono]

<meaningless stats>

Everyone knows Shaq was the better player btw.

He wasn't just the better player. He was the most dominant big in the league at the time, a guy that required double and triple teams to merely contain, and that opened up wide open shots for everyone else.

On defense, he anchored everything and was an intimidating presence inside. If you happened to watch the league back then, I shouldn't even need to be saying this.

IMO, you could replace Kobe with a good shooter in that team and they win 3 les. You replace Shaq and you don't win a thing.

[Molotov]

spurfan taking it to the kobe nut rider deuce galow, the butthurt is all to apparent, tbh

[midnightpulp]

Yup leading your team in points and assists through the Western Conference is "classical coattail riding"

2001 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 31.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.3 APG, .492 FG%
Shaq - 29.3 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 2.5 APG, .547 FG%


2002 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.4 APG, .418 FG%
Shaq - 26.4 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 2.6 APG, .510 FG%

Everyone knows Shaq was the better player btw.

Why do you always omit the Finals in Kobe's '01 run? Do you actually believe the '01 WCF was the "real NBA Finals?"

It wasn't. Mainly because Derek Anderson, the Spurs' best perimeter player, was injured (not that it would've mattered. Lakers sweep or win in 5. A healthy Anderson playing might've swung game 2 to the Spurs). And that Spurs team had one of the most laughably bad perimeter defenses with Terry Porter and Danny Ferry being Kobe's primary defenders.

Philly, with Eric Snow, a young Raja Bell, and Aaron McKie, at least had some capable bodies to throw at Bryant. And their interior defense wasn't half bad with Dikembe in there. Not to mention, Kobe at least had to work on defense when Phil would put him on Iverson. No surprise Kobe had his worst series of the '01 playoffs against that team.

The Sixers didn't get absolutely demolished like the Spurs, and even managed to win a game, so that was indeed the real NBA Finals.

[Molotov]

lakerfan laying down and accepting spurfan um in all holes

[Deuce Bigalow]

Still not getting it. Ah well, I tried.

[Thebesteva]

Lol @ these noobs hateing on Kobe.

Lebron may surpass Kobe but we have to see how the story ends. If he doesnt win more than 5 it will ALWAYS be debated. The point is when all is said and the three emperors of our generation will be Jordan, Lebron, and Kobe. Then we'll talk to our grandkids about how ty the players are today compared to the 2000's.

[midnightpulp]

Still not getting it. Ah well, I tried.

Because your argument doesn't make any sense, and pretty much boils down to:

Kobe's les as the SECOND best player on his team should count just as much as those players who won it as the best player on their team because Kobe's PPG was good

[midnightpulp]

Lebron may surpass Kobe but we have to see how the story ends. If he doesnt win more than 5 it will ALWAYS be debated. The point is when all is said and the three emperors of our generation will be Jordan, Lebron, and Kobe. Then we'll talk to our grandkids about how ty the players are today compared to the 2000's.

Emperors of a generation don't trail two other players of their same generation in Finals MVP wins.

Sorry, dude.

Magic: Emperor of his generation (most Finals MVPs of that era)

Jordan: Emperor of his generation (most Finals MVPs of that era)

Kobe: Emperor because (scored 81 points?)

[Molotov]

lakerfan trying to take off after ting the bed, in yet another kobe debate, no one understands my wisdom, or how amazing it is to hang on kobe's nuts 24/7

[Deuce Bigalow]

Emperors of a generation don't trail two other players of their same generation in Finals MVP wins.

Sorry, dude.

Magic: Emperor of his generation (most Finals MVPs of that era)

Jordan: Emperor of his generation (most Finals MVPs of that era)

Kobe: Emperor because (scored 81 points?)

Sorry dude, history will remember Kobe as the better player. Just a fact of life.

[midnightpulp]

lakerfan trying to take off after ting the bed, in yet another kobe debate, no one understands my wisdom, or how amazing it is to hang on kobe's nuts 24/7

They always do.

I guess I don't "get it." I really don't though, since I don't understand the point Deuce was trying to make. Kobe's 3 les alongside Shaq do not carry the same weight as les won when you are the best player on your team. Scottie Pippen was just as good of a 2nd banana (when you consider the two players' overall contribution to the game and not just "muh PPG") during his first 3 peat as Kobe was during his. Scottie made life very difficult for Magic in '91, something Kobe, 3 inches shorter than Pippen and nowhere near as long, would never, ever be able to do, despite his overhyped defensive reputation.

According to Deuce's logic: Scottie Pippen's 3 les won during the 1st 3 peat should count just as much, or almost as much, as Bird's 3 les in a player comparison debate.