Reply With Quote
10-27 you mean?
First off, even with a healthy, in his prime T-Mac, it would be absolutely no guarantee that the 2004 Spurs beat the 2004 Pistons. So no, it isn't "without question" he repeats.
As for the initial point about comparing Kobe's and Shaq's stats, there is no point. You want to talk about the amount of help each had, then you don't just stop at "second option." As you already admitted, winning championships is a "team" accomplishment. It's not an individual accomplishment. It's not even an accomplishment of only two or three players on a team. As has been said, the NBA isn't a 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 game.
So look at all of the teammates contributions, not just the second option or other primary option. And since you're focused pretty much on just scoring, let's look at just that.
Duncan's teammates' playoff stats in 2004, 2006, and 2008
73.3 PPG
43.9% FG
Kobe's teammates' playoff stats in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2010
71.5 PPG
45.8% FG
Take from that what you will...
10-27 you mean?
I didn't mean to slight your Pistons. But Duncan+Tmac+Parker (getting rid of Manu, Turkeyglue, and Mercer) would be the favorites in that series.
And those stats are incomplete without rebounding, steals, blocks, 3pt shooting (Spurs got that one easily), assists, etc. More to a supporting than scoring.
[QUOTE=midnightpulp;4699694]
Nash is 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs... doesn't bother me one bit. But Nash and Kobe aren't in the discussion for best player in of the era so their head to head is more arbitrary. Kobe didn't only beat Nash during Suns down years. Quite the opposite in fact.
On the other hand the Lakers and Spurs fought for supremacy for more than a decade. OBVIOUSLY it makes sense to evaluate their head to head record. If it was 4-3 or 3-2, it would be a bit more reasonable to dismiss the validity of this record but 4-1 is complete domination. Basically lucky year the Spurs got lucky... just like the Suns did this past year vs the Spurs I suppose.
Has nothing to do with being "lauded." It's about the appropriate level of respect earned based on the contribution and role played within the team.
Rings argument is not en vogue and only a moron would suggest it. Rings are what separates Russell from Chamberlain, Magic from John Stockton and so on and so forth. The greatest players of all time have always been players who've propelled their teams to the most success. This is not new.
What is "en vogue" is for fan boys whose man crushes happen to have less championships than a hated rival to diminish the significance of winning.
In the end it's about the ring count and your contribution towards those rings. Been that way for what? 60+ years. Lol
[QUOTE=history2b;4699722]There is nothing else.
[QUOTE=history2b;4699722][QUOTE=midnightpulp;4699694]
[QUOTE]Why do you conveniently ignore that the other player in the best player since Jordan argument, Shaq, was on your team? Also, the record stands at 4-2 since the Jordan-era, quit cherry picking. Oh, and I like the way your moving the goal posts. You definitively endorsed the 4-1 head-to-head score without qualification, but when I exposed your faulty logic in citing arbitrary "head-to-head" match ups like they mean something, now it's only when the "two players are in discussion for the best player of the decade."Nash is 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs... doesn't bother me one bit. But Nash and Kobe aren't in the discussion for best player in of the era so their head to head is more arbitrary. Kobe didn't only beat Nash during Suns down years. Quite the opposite in fact.
On the other hand the Lakers and Spurs fought for supremacy for more than a decade. OBVIOUSLY it makes sense to evaluate their head to head record. If it was 4-3 or 3-2, it would be a bit more reasonable to dismiss the validity of this record but 4-1 is complete domination. Basically lucky year the Spurs got lucky... just like the Suns did this past year vs the Spurs I suppose.
Then why do many experts have Wilt higher than Russell? Or Oscar higher than Hondo? Or Isiah Thomas higher than Pippen?Rings argument is not en vogue and only a moron would suggest it. Rings are what separates Russell from Chamberlain, Magic from John Stockton and so on and so forth. The greatest players of all time have always been players who've propelled their teams to the most success. This is not new.
Only mancrush in this thread is yours on Kobe. You've been that way for years on the ESPN boards. It's why you cry like a girl with a skinned knee when Cholo and Elf ruin your Kobe loving fun.What is "en vogue" is for fan boys whose man crushes happen to have less championships than a hated rival to diminish the significance of winning.
Oh, and before the Gasol trade, I remember starting a thread on the Lakers board arguing Duncan was greater than Shaq, because Duncan never had a player like Kobe Bryant as a 2nd.
Guess who agreed with me? You did.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-27-2010 at 02:10 PM.
[QUOTE=Giuseppe;4699763]I agree. But teams win rings. Not individual players by themselves.
The individual ring count is just a trolling mechanism like it was when it was Duncan: 4 & Kobe: 3.
What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I never used that. I think ring smack is pretty lame.
My biggest issue with Kobe is his tendency, more like strong habit, to force bad shots and the inefficient manner in which he does it.
Personally, if I had to choose between prime Duncan or prime Kobe, I take Duncan every time.
But I believe in building around the big man and think that all perimeter players (except Jordan) are overrated.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-27-2010 at 02:30 PM.
LOL
Poor midnightpulp will never be able to get Kobe off his mind.
Kobe has repeated multiple times is now going for his 2nd 3peat. Duncan never even came close to repeating.
Deal with it kid.
Yup, darn that inefficient Kobe and the 5 rings that ensued!!
Bottom line: Spurs suck and the Lakers have won back to back championships while you sit over there and watch from home crying your tears.
Thanks to building around an extremely efficient big man.
Why do you feel the need to describe the Spurs in this context, or someone crying? Does that make you feel better about Kobe only having 2 Finals MVPs in 7 tries?Bottom line: Spurs suck and the Lakers have won back to back championships while you sit over there and watch from home crying your tears.
mid...I guess that's short for midget....you better listen to your fellow Spur com-padres...even they're tiring of your incessant rants...
Please love my Kobe
I wouldn't want anyone to love him, just don't be a moron about him.
"Ring smack" lol
Yeah, that pesky barometer of greatness since, ohh the beginning time.
For teams, I agree.
And I don't think you understand the concept of "ring smack" as it applies on a message board.
To come here and flaunt the Lakers championships like they're your own for the purpose of putting down fans of other teams who have less or none is beyond pathetic.
Nash versus Kobe was never a legitimate debate in the NBA. No one cares about guys who don't win rings. Nash can be compared to the Dirk's, AI's and TMacs of the league... this is yet another example of something that should be obvious but to the few morons out there with a bone to pick they'll say anything no matter how irrelevant the comparison.
Why do you conveniently ignore that the other player in the best player since Jordan argument, Shaq, was on your team? Also, the record stands at 4-2 since the Jordan-era, quit cherry picking. Oh, and I like the way your moving the goal posts. You definitively endorsed the 4-1 head-to-head score without qualification, but when I exposed your faulty logic in citing arbitrary "head-to-head" match ups like they mean something, now it's only when the "two players are in discussion for the best player of the decade."
I'm glad you pointed out the 4-2 overall record the Lakers hold over the Spurs since 1999.
1999 was a year when Kobe Bryant had yet mature (20 years old, first year as a starter) and the Lakers lacked a true leader. Enter Phil Jackson who promptly whips Shaq's fat ass into shape, gets him to rebound and defend and magically the Lakers win 3 straight championships.
Sure the Spurs won in the * shortened season in 1999, technically at a time when it would have been late February / early March in the NBA season. Hooray for *'s!!
Quite a few have Russell over Wilt, lol. Hondo doesn't get the credit that Russell does hence his lower ranking and just as Pippen doesn't get the recognition for playing with Michael. Both are great players but neither were considered to have impacted their team's success as much as others. That's just the way it is. Had Pip gone on to win again, perhaps he'd have shifted this perspective but he didn't.
Because I'm not looking for a reason to have your idiotic perspective lol? A Pov so bitter and damaged you actively look for all angles to prove that Kobe Bryant, someone "experts" consider to be an all time great player, really isn't all that great.... really? That's what you spend your time trying to prove? Why not just try and prove that gravity doesn't exist or that the Sun really rotates around the Earth?
And how out of touch are you citing "Elf and Cholo" of all people. Elf's a comedian and a cool guy I might add and Cholo is a drunken belligerent ex con who never played basketball in his life. Excellent insight.
There was a time when I thought Tim was better than Shaq but that was many years ago and while I think they are both very close, I give the nod to Shaq for playing at a higher level than Tim ever did.
Nothing wrong with that either, it's just that neither are as good as Kobe Bryant.
[QUOTE=history2b;4702127]God, you're such a in' moron. No wonder everyone here, including Lakers fans, thinks you're a terrible poster. So if Duncan, with a much better supporting cast, met Kobe in 06 and 07 when Kobe was dragging along Smush and Kwame, and won both times, squaring the record at 4-4, that would somehow magically give Duncan more ammunition in the debate? That's a ridiculous idea. There's so many variables that determine the outcome of a game or playoff series that to reduce it to a star player vs. star player compe ion is illogical. Are you really this intellectually challenged?Nash versus Kobe was never a legitimate debate in the NBA. No one cares about guys who don't win rings. Nash can be compared to the Dirk's, AI's and TMacs of the league... this is yet another example of something that should be obvious but to the few morons out there with a bone to pick they'll say anything no matter how irrelevant the comparison.
Related to this point. Many experts have the Lakers as the greatest franchise of all-time, despite having one less ring and a 9-3 head-to-head disadvantage. Now why is that? If head-to-head records were that important, in any context, why isn't the choice abundantly clear?
Excuses, excuses. All said and done, your boys got swept out of the Forum.I'm glad you pointed out the 4-2 overall record the Lakers hold over the Spurs since 1999.
1999 was a year when Kobe Bryant had yet mature (20 years old, first year as a starter) and the Lakers lacked a true leader. Enter Phil Jackson who promptly whips Shaq's fat ass into shape, gets him to rebound and defend and magically the Lakers win 3 straight championships.
Sure the Spurs won in the * shortened season in 1999, technically at a time when it would have been late February / early March in the NBA season. Hooray for *'s!!
Yes, quite a few have Wilt over Russell, Oscar over Hakeem, etc.Quite a few have Russell over Wilt, lol. Hondo doesn't get the credit that Russell does hence his lower ranking and just as Pippen doesn't get the recognition for playing with Michael. Both are great players but neither were considered to have impacted their team's success as much as others. That's just the way it is. Had Pip gone on to win again, perhaps he'd have shifted this perspective but he didn't.
Strawman. I never said Kobe "really isn't all that great." I have him number 10 all-time. I just don't believe he's better than Shaq and Timmy, or that he's Jordan incarnate.Because I'm not looking for a reason to have your idiotic perspective lol? A Pov so bitter and damaged you actively look for all angles to prove that Kobe Bryant, someone "experts" consider to be an all time great player, really isn't all that great.... really? That's what you spend your time trying to prove? Why not just try and prove that gravity doesn't exist or that the Sun really rotates around the Earth?
I never implied they had great basketball takes. I was referring to the way all you Kobe fan s get butthurt when they challenge the greatness of your hero, Lord, savior, and lover.And how out of touch are you citing "Elf and Cholo" of all people. Elf's a comedian and a cool guy I might add and Cholo is a drunken belligerent ex con who never played basketball in his life. Excellent insight.
Fair enough.There was a time when I thought Tim was better than Shaq but that was many years ago and while I think they are both very close, I give the nod to Shaq for playing at a higher level than Tim ever did.
Fair enough. I don't agree, however.Nothing wrong with that either, it's just that neither are as good as Kobe Bryant.
Individually..
If you value peak, Shaq was easily the greatest center of all time.
I value longevity, and to me Duncan and Kobe are up there with the best of all time - Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan. Can't say one is greater than the other, both are definitely Top 10 All-Time.. give me Kobe or Duncan and I'd be happy as a franchise.
Repeating is not important to an individual player's legacy I think. It is more of a measure of team success, a dynasty. I think most would agree a team that threepeats is a greater dynasty than a team that wins three in five years. Although if you ask an owner which route they'd choose, they would just be happy with either one of them. Winning is winning.
Last edited by Nahtanoj; 10-28-2010 at 01:10 AM.
That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
Im here bored on a business trip so I'll bite. I dont care if you are playing an individual sport like tennis or a team sport like football/basketball ...winning les is all that matters in the end. Joakim's dad and Mcenroe were much more exciting players than Fed or sampras but you know who is greater? The one with more les. Montana was boring. Marino was much more exciting to watch and one of my all-time favorite QB's But he is not greater all-time than Montana, Elway Farve or young. I could make some whiny excuses that elway never won until Terrel Davis or argue "give Marino Jerry rice or ronnie Lott as team-mates and he would win too". But i live in a real world not a fantasy one. Of course some nit wit will use the "horry defense" or bring up "trent dilfer" but what do either have to do in a discussion of the all-time greats? As much as admire marino he is not greater than those guys because he failed to ring. Period. i accept that. For example, I think hakeem was a more dominant force in his prime than tim. He has great stats and led his team to repeat and beat all the best centers of his generation in the two ke years. But Duncan has 4 rings. Hakeem only 2. So Tim did not repeat? it doesnt bug me but those 4 rings stand out. That to me, gives Tim the edge. If Hakeem was >>> better than duncan the two ring difference would not matter. But since it is close IMHO the rings are the tie breaker.
i feel the same about the kobe vs. Tim debate. Maybe Tim is better (i dont think so) but I believe it is close regardless. I know im biased here, but i use the same criteria in all sports even in the barry vs. emmitt debate. I dont care about YPC, or 20 yard plus runs, i care about les. To be the greatest you need one. end of story team sport or not.
Wrong, if you value peak Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest most dominant center of all time.
"Most dominant," I would agree with Wilt. But depending on what you value in a center and factoring era and compe ion, "greatest" is arguable. Considering level of compe ion and overall game, one could argue Hakeem's peak as being the greatest center of all time.
midnight you still making all these kobe threads?
wtf bro you butthurt?
[QUOTE=midnightpulp;4702205]I have have a ton of Laker fan allies... can't say I get along with all nor do I care to. All that matters is respecting the game first... anyone who says otherwise.
I agree there are too many variables to rely on this one factor as the sole reason and it was never rationalized to be in the first place....
Meanwhile here we are in your thread that you created in order to reduce the game to "2nd options." Did you forget that your entire creation here is a vastly reduced understanding of the game, with all those "variables" ignored in order pump up Tim Duncan? Funny isn't it?
That's because the Lakers are the only franchise to have enjoyed success over 5 separate generations, have a lot more Finals appearances, better winning percentages, didn't have a long stretch of missing the playoffs, etc.
Moreover more "experts" only acknowledged the Lakers now because they just beat the Celtics, moving within one le. Had the Celtics won that series and were sitting with 18 vs the Lakers 15 you sure as can bet the vast majority would still pick the Celtics.
But greatest was not achieved by Boston Green this past year... a lot has changed in a year, I just hope everyone has the intelligence to understand how.
The Lakers were terrible that year. I have no qualm admitting that. I didn't like the way Shaq performed back then, I didn't respect him as a leader and Kobe was just a kid. A little maturity from the prodigy and a lot more commitment from the centerpiece is all it took. Had Duncan come into the league at age 17 how would he have done? Can't say for sure but obviously it would have taken some time.
Name them. Links?
I have Oscar over Hakeem as well but not Wilt over Russell and I'm a Laker fan. That's just objectivity. I'm not here trying to twist anyone's arm in order to pump up my own teams stars like some people.
Oscar and Wilt are probably the 2 biggest stat padders the game has ever seen and I don't mean that in a bad way. They both simply dominated the game individually racking up gaudy stats and both ultimately won championships.
For the sake of this conversation, Tim Duncan was never impressive statistically. Quite the opposite in fact.
You haven't made a strong case for either, especially considering how things have shaped up amid the most recent evidence.
Nope, never hurt me either. Had nothing to do with hero's etc.
It was about the game first and they did not respect the game and that's all the beef was ever about, just like it is here with you and you embarrassingly stupid thread le.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
