Reply With Quote
Here:
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Ya happy now?
What matters more to you when ranking a player's career, tbh?..
Peak seems like the clear answer, but how much does longevity weigh in a player's career ranking?..
Here:
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Ya happy now?
Longetivy tbh. TMac would be > Kobe if we're talking peak.
Except TMac's peak wasn't a le.
What really matters is how much the media sucked them off. You have some really great players over the years not get the exposure that a Ron Artest gets, based solely on market size and their antics. Kobe threatens to quit his team, does quit in '06, scores a bundle of points because the team is comprised of over paid mercs who draw the gunfire away from him. Put him on the T-Wolves and he's just a chucker, a bigger Brandon Jennings type player. Just look at Fisher, not even Jarret Jack level talent and he's got 5 rings. Yep, many a turd has risen in the bowl of piss caused by the outpouring of bladder matter from bigs like Shaq and Gasol.
Neither was Kobe's
Actually it was. Scoring peak/awards (not rewards, like les) are not career peaks. If a Finals MVP isn't a peak, what is? Any given decent player can score a ton of points in a gimmick system that allows for it.
Ask anyone when Kobe's prime was. They'd all say 2006-07.
If they knew nothing about the game and only looked at stats, sure. Kobe scored more then, was a bigger player overall on his team then, and actually won the league MVP back then. There's no way someone's peak is in a time where they didn't make it to the 2nd round vs a time when they won b2b Finals MVP les. It just makes no sense.
The Lakers didn't win B2B les because Kobe played better in those years than he did from 2005-07. They did it because of the Gasol trade, and despite Kobe taking a minor step back from his 2006 days.
The same goes for Jordan in his 2nd 3peat. Does anyone say that he was in his prime in 1998? Even though he 3peated Finals MVP les? No. The Bulls won because they got Rodman and despite Jordan taking a minor step back from his 1991 days.
Its kind of weird to rank a player ahead of someone just because he had a longer career when that other player would destroy him in his prime.
That's why Shaq>>>>>duncan
I think a better example; Ray Allen is considered better or would be ranked higher than Grant Hill when Hill was miles and miles better than Allen in his prime.
For most NBA fans I think longevity matters way more as long as the peaks aren't night and day different. For instance, no one talks about Vince Carter in the all-time great shooting guards even though he had a few monster seasons early on. Or look at the way Malone is always so highly rated despite being one of the all time great chokers. Kareem is generally considered better than Shaq and Olajuwon since he played 20 high quality seasons.
longevity matters more to me when im about to assess the career of a player's. career for sure covers more than just one or two years where someone plays at his peak. if the question is "the best basketball player you've ever seen", which refers more to the zenith of a player, then a player's peak would weigh more.
Did shaqs peak not beat Duncan's peak
Yeah. But Duncan typically outplayed Shaq head-to-head during the 3 peat years, and has outplayed Shaq overall in the post-season.
But yes, Shaq's peak was a notch higher than Duncan's. 3 peat Shaq is arguably the 3rd greatest player of all time behind 1st 3 peat MJ and repeat Dream.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
