Reply With Quote
LOL ambchang
LOL biased butthurt spurfans
I would. That shot wasn't made by Horry, but by three stooges who didn't know when the second quarter was finished.
LOL ambchang
LOL biased butthurt spurfans
All this shows is that Lakers fans have more trolls than any other fanbase on Spurstalk.....LOL ambchang
LOL biased butthurt spurfans
Tim Duncan is no doubt the player of the decade...im not being baised.
It's not a spurstalk poll you dumb .It's an ESPN poll.
No he dominated the Nets.....
Since when have I even remotely compared Ariza to anyone of the caliber of LeBron James, but Ariza was able to defend, shoot, and score at the rate of a Barry + Horry, he wasn't as great a defender was Bowen was, but he was at least close.
None of the role players showed as much talent as Ariza did. Ariza was the clear 4th, or even 5th player on the Lakers. Any teams of the last decade didn't have a 4th and 5th option as talented as Ariza, with the exception of maybe the 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons. Not coincidentally, none of the lead players in those two teams were remotely close to going in the player of the decade discussion.
Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, and who else?
[QUOTE=JamStone;3854818]I was never going to argue anything about Tiny Archibald. You brought him up. My point was to mention how Kobe's greatness is more impressive because he's a 6'6 perimeter player and not a 7-footer, and he still dominated the game. You even admitted it's more impressive yourself. Bringing up Archibald or Spud Webb or whoever is not pertinent to my point at all, unless they dominated the way Kobe and Duncan have dominated. There's another point you're trying to twist inaccurately./quote]
Stay consistent with your approach. You didn't say Kobe's accomplishments were more impressive, you said "Kobe's peak was greater simply because he's a 6'6 perimeter player dominating a game that has been dominated by big men since its inception." By the same rationale, Nate Archibald's accomplishments should be viewed as "greater". I am saying the opposite, I don't care how tall you are, your accomplishments are your accomplishments. Dominating as a 6'6" player is definitely rarer and even impressive, but it's not greater.
Michael at his dominating peak wasn't putting up 28/5/5, he was putting up 35/6/6, or 32/8/8. Oscar was putting up 30/12/11. Lebron was putting up 31/7/7, or 30/8/7 in the same era as Kobe. Besides, Kobe's peak wasn't even 28/5/5, he was putting up 35/5/5 a couple of years later. Jerry West was putting up 31/7/6, and the guy was only 6'2", make him the greatest ever (though West was most certainly great)/
Your memory is skewing history. Jordan was considered the best individual talent during the late 80's, but Magic and Bird was still the face of the league back then. The sole reason was because Jordan was viewed as a ballhog and cannot operate in a team concept. It wasn't until Jordan broke through in the early 90's, along with the Lakers decline that he wrestled the best player of the league le from Magic. And in 62-63, Wilt and Russell was still dominating the league. Pe t and Baylor was also one of the top players of the league. THe Big O was one of the top 5, but clearly as the top 2?
I never said image and politics never got in the way of voting, it was you who said no-playoff players NEVER get MVP votes, and it's been proven that is not true.
[QUOTE=JamStone;3854818]I don't dismiss 2005. You were the one who brought up MVP voting. I listed their places in MVP voting to show you that it was actually pretty close. If Duncan has the advantage in the first 4-5 seasons of the decade, Kobe has the advantage the last 4 seasons. But, the difference in the advantage of each guy isn't that much at all, 2005 notwithstanding./quote]
You didn't even count the year where he didn't get voted in to the average. His standing would have dropped significantly if he finished in #15 and you factored in the results. That was simply rewarding him for being in a PR disaster that year.
How is that hypocrisy? It would be hypocrisy if I dismissed Kobe's accomplishments because of factors that do not affect them. By factoring in pace and tempo, you level the field. A student getting 95/100 is more impressive than a student getting 96/120, the student getting a 96/120 simply had more opportunities for a higher grade. A student who is 6'6" getting 95/100 accomplished exactly the same as a student who is 6'11" getting 95/100.
24/13/4/2.6 is better than 28/5/5/1.6. Which one would you take?
My apologies, I meant different set of opponents in the sample. Their games were weighted differently in which Kobe had most of his games at the beginning and end of 00's, whild Duncan had a heavier weight in the middle. And they played against very different opponents. I can't just take these stats and run with them, you have to normalize them.
So you are the person who wants to say that I am being a hypocrite by factoring in pace?
This is belly-bursting level of hilarious, as you are somehow claiming that records have no bearing on how good a player in early on in the post because teammates matter, and now, you are saying that Kobe is better than Duncan because his teams performed better in the playoffs?
To top it off, you are totally ignoring the year Kobe missed the playoffs all by itself? Horry had an astounding record in the playoffs as well, and I am sick of talking about him being a sidekick, put Horry in the debate.
You are confused now, records don't matter in best player debates, stay in the lane, which one is it? Records matter, or do they not matter? Or let me guess, height matters. Seems like you are the only one claiming better chocolate milk in the bar, not me.
Have you watched the NBA the last 10 years? The NBA has changed the rules to allow faster perimeter play the last 10 years, the game has been changed a huge lot.
And keep drinking your chocolate milk in that bar of yours, it tastes a lot better for you.
What does winning the championship has to do with anything about being a sidekick? Teams that don't win championships can't have sided kicks? But if you want to twist and turn your argument as you please, sure, McHale averaged 24.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs, the year the Celtics won a championship, and Bird averaged 25.9 ppg, or are you now going to argue that Bird is an inch shorter, he was definitely the lead?
Proof?
Kareem was still the man until the mid 80's. In 1981, Magic was almost ran out of town because it was perceived he fired his coach. He was known as Tragic Johnson for botching a play.
Dr. J was at the tail end of his dominance, and he was most definitely a sidekick to Moses.
What is even better? They are not even on the same bloody team in 80, 81 and 82! It was 83 and Moses did 25/15 to Dr. J's 22/7, Dr. J was the clear sidekick those years, and it's an indication that a superstar CAN work as a sidekick at a different part of their careers.
Sure, but he was still a sidekick. Since when do you have to be a top 5 player in the league to have a sidekick?
McHale with his 25/9/3 comes pretty close. And no, I can't find those sidekick stats because Kobe was the best sidekick in the history of the league.
If the chocolate milk was ed, it would be better, because that would be like Bailey's. But it's not, and it's still just chocolate milk, no matter how tall the glass is, or where I am having it.
THe ones making the decisions hangs out in LA. It's going to be Kobe. I disagree and think it should be Timmeh.
I have this game and I just watched it to compare it to some of these other performances. It was a parade to the free-throw line, and while he was 'unconscious' he had an airball when there was no defender there to slap his hand or the ball. He was clutch, he made big shots at key moments, but this was not a night where he was a hot hand. This was not a night where he controlled the game. He drew a bunch of fouls in the last 6 minutes of the fourth and the entire 1st overtime. Anytime the ball went anywhere else, the Cavs were shut down. They had no choice.
If that's his best game, then Lebron James is simply a dunk machine created and hyped by the media. If I were James, I would set the record straight because it goes to my credability of what I actually can do.
Duncan got me into watching basketball.
Need I say more?
I will go with Kevin Garnett's game 7 in the NBA Western Conference Semifinals against the Sacramento Kings. It was an elimination game and Garnett came up big. As league MVP, he showed up and kicked some ass. And I hate Garnett. 32 points and 21 rebounds. He got 13 rebounds straight for the Wolves and carried the Wolves to the Conference Finals.
You liked watchin' Duncan babysit David Robinson, eh? It was adorable.
0 & 54 & Fake NBA Champions.
Just voted for TD against the Nets
It didn't...Tim owned that entire Laker team and put the Spurs in a position to win every game. That series was much closer than 4-1 indicates. Almost every game was decided in crunch time.
At the end of games, Phil would just send double and triple teams to Timmy every play and make his teammates beat them. Phil's strategy worked. He did the same thing in 2004 and to an extent in 2008.
But yeah back to the main point. Tim took a giant doo doo all over the Shaq and Horry in that series.
Here are some exact quotes from the game 5 recap:
"In last year's sweep in the conference finals, LA humiliated San Antonio, winning by an average of 22 points. This year, the wins came by an average of six points, with all of them decided in crunch time."
"Once again, Duncan was phenomenal. The NBA Most Valuable Player made 11-of-23 shots and 12-of-14 free throws, adding four assists and two blocks. And once again, he did not have enough help. "
Tim has my vote for player of the decade, but Kobe's not too far behind. He hasn't had as much success as Tim being the leader of his team, but his numbers, unparalleled footwork and skill for a perimeter player, countless amazing performances in pressure situations, and ridiculous will to win can't be overlooked.
Shaq was the leader of those teams in 2000-2004, but Kobe played a huge role, a much bigger role than any #2 option (not "sidekick") that I've ever seen.
In 2002, the Spurs were on pace to win just about every game until Kobe took over in the 4th.
In 2004 many people point to game 5 as the series changing game, but most forget that the Spurs were on their way to a 3-1 series lead by halftime of game 4. In the second half of that game Kobe went ape for over 40 points and the Lakers tied the series.
In 2009, with Pau getting dominated by Tim and the rest of his teammates other than Vujacic (go figure) playing like absolute , Kobe pretty much single-handedly beat us. He absolutely slaughtered us in the 4th quarter of those games.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Tim is the best of this decade, but Kobe's not far behind...at all.
Tim simply gets the edge as a better leader, proven winner, and better performer in the finals.
Lol @ Dirk getting dissed by TNT and not being included in the poll for Best Playoff performance in a game
50pts against the Suns in Game 5 of the WCF...Mavs were trailing entering the 4th qtr Dirk took over the game and outscored the Suns the NBA's most potent offense that season in that season
Garnett is a , but that game was huge. No doubts here.
Agreed.
Found this interesting. Tell the truth, is this true?
VBIZZLE123 (Yesterday at 9:27 PM)
Report Violation Any1 who says the Spurs were the team of the decade need to check that at the door because they only had 3 showings in the finals Lakers 6. I live in San Antonio and even we know it down here.
...probably the new & improved Bowen posting incognito.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
