Reply With Quote
Says the guy that compares players based on teams accomplishments.A guy who thinks manu>dirk is not worth discussing basketball with. Go suck on messi's some more, dip
The other side to that argument is that in Jordan's day, defenders could hand check and hard fouls were rarely called flagrants. Jordan never faced zone, but in many ways, the defense played against him was much, much tougher. I remember seeing Jordan get knocked to the ground by four different Pistons on the same play, two or three of the fouls intentionally dirty, and no foul at all being called. The different era with "no zones" doesn't tell the whole story either. And by the time Jordan and the Bulls started winning championships, there were some very good defensive teams he had to get through, most notably the Pistons before they started to decline and the New York Knicks. Those teams did not have " ty defense." People tend to look at just the NBA Finals where most of the teams the Bulls faced there were not great all around defensive teams, except for maybe Seattle. But Jordan faced tough defenses on the way to les.
And if we start talking about "talent and ability" only and not actual production and individual accomplishments, I guess you'd agree that LeBron is better than both Michael and Kobe. Further, we can put Michael Ray Richardson into the discussion, based only on "talent and ability." Or how about we just all agree that Earl Manigault is the greatest to ever play the game and is better than any of those guys.
Says the guy that compares players based on teams accomplishments.A guy who thinks manu>dirk is not worth discussing basketball with. Go suck on messi's some more, dip
lol Kobe beign top 3 of all time
Just from the players I saw, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq and Lebron are better than Kobe. How in could Kobe be a top 3 or even top 5 of all-time?
Lebron needs some worthwhile playoff success before he's even in the discussion. The teammate excuse went out the window this year when he contributed to losing to Boston as much as his teammates did.
Prime Shaq > prime Kobe but Kobe's prime lasted longer than Shaq's and I always consider how long a prime lasted more important than others do. Prime Olajuwon > pretty much anyone else's prime but his prime was only 2-3 years and that's why he's not in the discussion. Kareem had 17 straight years where he averaged 21 or more points on 51+% shooting, it's just my personal view that's more impressive than 1 individual dominant season like 2003 Duncan, 1995 Olajuwon or 2000 Shaq.
My top 5 all time is MJ, Kareem, Magic, and Bird with Duncan & Kobe tied for 5th. 3 of Kobe's 5 rings I discount because of Shaq, 2 of Duncan's 4 rings I discount because 2005-2007 was an extremely weak time in the NBA because of how many top tier players were wasting on a team with no supporting cast. Now that I think about it I probably put Kobe 6th all time because Duncan's 2003 season gives him the edge, but if he wins another one I put Kobe ahead.
Thing with Hakeem is that people talk about him having such a short "prime" in his career compared to others, but it wasn't like he wasn't a great player outside those two years. Take away the two championship seasons, Hakeem still put up 10 seasons of 20 ppg, 10 rpg, and 50% shooting.
I think the standards change with Hakeem because he only won those two championships, and it was back-to-back, and just a few years later, he was done. But I think people twist history. He was a top 5 player in the league for probably close to 10 seasons. He was one of the two best big men in the league probably 8-10 of the years outside the championship seasons. You talk about Kareem's longevity with 21 ppg on 51% shooting, all of those seasons weren't Kareem's prime. But Hakeem puts up 20/10/50% for 12 straight seasons, almost 13, but his prime is only 2 years?
Don't quite get it.
Well IMO Hakeem's prime is 1993-1995, just semantics really but I said 2-3 years because it's debatable whether or not 1993 is grouped in there.
People (including me) talk about his short prime because prior to 1993 Hakeem was a guy who while he put up good numbers had yet to win a playoff series with Ralph Sampson being another presence down low. In other words, his 1993-1995 years are considered his prime because those years are the reason why people talk about him being one of the best players of all time. Yes, in the 80's and early 90's he was making the all star team and making all NBA 1st and 2nd team appearances, but those alone don't put you in the top 5 players of all time discussions. I contrast that with Kareem who won a finals MVP at age 38 and had an entire decade where he dominated the MVP award.
Just look at 2005-2007 Kobe as an example. He was probably the best player in the NBA at the time, but he wasn't winning anything in the playoffs those years, and consequently wasn't getting any top 5 ever consideration or MJ comparisons. The reason those years are still considered part of his prime is because those numbers are even more impressive and gaudy than the stats he's put up post-Gasol. Hakeem's numbers became more impressive when his team started to have playoff success so people just don't count the previous years as part of his prime.
And yea you're right Hakeem going downhill almost immediately after that 1995 championship is probably a huge reason why he's considered to have a short prime.
Why do Kobe fans love unquantifiable arguments so much?..
When you have nothing to say, you make arguments like, "Kobe is better, because he's more talented, and that's just what I believe"..
"How is he more talented?"..
"He just is"..
"Why?"..
"Because, that's just how it is, you're such a ing hater Harlem"..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
