"Kobe had Shaq and Gasol, plus he played on stacked teams"

[The Iron Fist]

"so he isn't all that great even if he has 5 rings".



Ok,


so what players should Kobe have to win a championship to get proper credit?

[N0Skillz]

"so he isn't all that great even if he has 5 rings".



Ok,


so what players should Kobe win a championship to get proper credit?


If he wins with 1 arm tied behind his back while he is balancing a banana on his nose, I might just count 1.

[Timmy D for MVP]

He has credit but you can't really compare him to others based soley on his championship count BECAUSE those first three he wasn't really that center piece.

Shaq was the guy.

So when comparing to... say MJ, who was the guy each time, it is tough to use just the numbers.

Not to take away from the fact that he won 5 championships as a key player! But yes, there is a bit of a difference.

[Micku]

Magic and Kareem had a stacked team in the 80s. Bird had a stacked team with the Celts. Jordan had a stacked team in the 90s. It didn't affect their legacy.

Kobe is a great player. But...I think people are hesitate to put Kobe over the rest of the greats because they feel he isn't good enough. Which I can see why sometimes.

[The Iron Fist]

He has credit but you can't really compare him to others based soley on his championship count BECAUSE those first three he wasn't really that center piece.

Shaq was the guy.

So when comparing to... say MJ, who was the guy each time, it is tough to use just the numbers.

Not to take away from the fact that he won 5 championships as a key player! But yes, there is a bit of a difference.



So, do you take away credit from Magic Johnson?

He played with the GOAT, and never won a ring when he retired.

[The Iron Fist]

Magic and Kareem had a stacked team in the 80s. Bird had a stacked team with the Celts. Jordan had a stacked team in the 90s. It didn't affect their legacy.

Kobe is a great player. But...I think people are hesitate to put Kobe over the rest of the greats because they feel he isn't good enough. Which I can see why sometimes.


I can see why too,

it comes down to some weird obsession with hating him.

My wife doesn't like Kobe for girly reasons,

"he has a peanut head and he thinks hes all that".


That attitude sums up the majority of his haters.

[Timmy D for MVP]

So, do you take away credit from Magic Johnson?

He played with the GOAT, and never won a ring when he retired.

Again it is not WHO you play with.

It is being "that guy" you know what I mean? It's extremely hard to quantify. And in truth can be very subjective at times.

Like this Heat team. If they win, what will the legacy be of these guys? Who will be considered that guy?

[ImmortalD24]

The OP is a baiting dumbass. Stop making threads.

Yes Kobe has had help. /thread


How can someone make a thread like this, after a game we just witnessed? Just does not make sense.. Go to bed clown.

[opps]

The OP is a baiting dumbass. Stop making threads.

Yes Kobe has had help. /thread


How can someone make a thread like this, after a game we just witnessed? Just does not make sense.. Go to bed clown.

You misunderstood what hes doing. Hes asking the haters who does Kobe have to win with to gain any respect from them.

[The Iron Fist]

Again it is not WHO you play with.

It is being "that guy" you know what I mean? It's extremely hard to quantify. And in truth can be very subjective at times.

Like this Heat team. If they win, what will the legacy be of these guys? Who will be considered that guy?


Well, obviously to some people it is as we see day after day,

"Kobe had Shaq and Gasol".

But if you want to take it your route,

Both Kobe and Shaq, were, "that guy". Just like Magic and Kareem, were, "that guy", and played on stacked teams as well. However, you don't see people ever, knocking Magics game, or resume despite playing alongside great players. You don't see people knocking Bird for playing alongside 3 other HOFers.

So, again, who should Kobe have played with to get proper credit?

[The Iron Fist]

You misunderstood what hes doing. Hes asking the haters who does Kobe have to win with to gain any respect from them.
:applause:

I thought it was pretty obvious as I wrote it in plain english.

[OriginalNameGuy]

"so he isn't all that great even if he has 5 rings".



Ok,


so what players should Kobe win a championship to get proper credit?
he doesn't deserve credit because rings are a team accomplishment

and his performance in the Finals has always been sub-par compared to his regular season #s

[D.J.]

Every superstar needed help to win a ring. Michael Jordan didn't win sh*t until Scottie Pippen developed into the best perimeter defender in the league. Chamberlain didn't win a ring until he was 31. Kareem needed Oscar Robertson to win his ring in Milwaukee. No players wins titles by themselves. You want to bring Shaq into this? He didn't win a ring until Kobe developed into a rising star.

[AlphaWolf24]

He has credit but you can't really compare him to others based soley on his championship count BECAUSE those first three he wasn't really that center piece.

Shaq was the guy.

So when comparing to... say MJ, who was the guy each time, it is tough to use just the numbers.

Not to take away from the fact that he won 5 championships as a key player! But yes, there is a bit of a difference.


MJ = 5 losing seasons as the man.....

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2173000/AlphaWolf-2173969_446_591.jpg
MJ had 3 biased MVP's I think....but Kobe is beasting at the main goal...winning

[The Iron Fist]

The OP is a baiting dumbass. Stop making threads.

Yes Kobe has had help. /thread


How can someone make a thread like this, after a game we just witnessed? Just does not make sense.. Go to bed clown.


So, go participate in other threads. I never asked you to come in, reply and bump my thread to the top.

Your stupid ass chose too.

[Indian guy]

Every championship team is loaded. Pretty stupid to get on his case for that. Although one thing he CAN do to gain more respect is actually have a good NBA Finals in his career. You know, finish the season strong. His 'help' gets talked about more because he always ends up being more helped than other superstars.

[ImmortalD24]

You misunderstood what hes doing. Hes asking the haters who does Kobe have to win with to gain any respect from them.
The people who don't respect him.. Won't respect him regardless of how many threads is made.


How many times has a thread like this ended on a positive note?

"Please like / give respect to my idol Kobe" threads just does not work. Just enjoy the game, and if haters want to hate one of the top 10 player of all-time.. it's their problem.

[The Iron Fist]

he doesn't deserve credit because rings are a team accomplishment

and his performance in the Finals has always been sub-par compared to his regular season #s


So, if rings are a team accomplishment,

nobody deserves credit for their championship accolades?

[AlphaWolf24]

Again it is not WHO you play with.

It is being "that guy" you know what I mean? It's extremely hard to quantify. And in truth can be very subjective at times.

Like this Heat team. If they win, what will the legacy be of these guys? Who will be considered that guy?


Jordan 5 Losing seasons as "that guy".....1/3 of his career as "that guy" he's been sub .500

your argument is silly

[Hihater]

Omg, if kobe win a ring with kwame brown, im going to call kobe G.O.A.T.

[opps]

:applause:

I thought it was pretty obvious as I wrote it in plain english.

And by the way the haters arent gonna answer you. They hate on Kobe for a reason...hell Kobe is not doing something right if hes not being hated on. Its retarded for them to think that they can discredit 5 rings while Magic never won w/o Karrem, Bird w/o McHale & Jordan w/o Pippen. Kobe will go down as one of the greatest no matter what they believe.

[AlphaWolf24]

"so he isn't all that great even if he has 5 rings".



Ok,


so what players should Kobe win a championship to get proper credit?


Win 8 - 10 Finals...then maybe a top 12 perimeter player ever:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[The Iron Fist]

Every championship team is loaded. Pretty stupid to get on his case for that. Although one thing he CAN do to gain more respect is actually have a good NBA Finals in his career. You know, finish the season strong. His 'help' gets talked about more because he always ends up being more helped than other superstars.


So, you're telling me, that a guy who has two finals MVPS,

didn't have a good NBA finals?

What does that say about the rest of his championship team, the team that lost and the rest of the league?

[KenneBell]

LOL at Kobe never having a good Finals. I'm out. It looks like the trolls have come to roost.

[The Iron Fist]

And by the way the haters arent gonna answer you. They hate on Kobe for a reason...hell Kobe is not doing something right if hes not being hated on. Its retarded for them to think that they can discredit 5 rings while Magic never won w/o Karrem, Bird w/o McHale & Jordan w/o Pippen. Kobe will go down as one of the greatest no matter what they believe.


I know. Like I said, they hate on him because they have female tendencies.

[AlphaWolf24]

The OP is a baiting dumbass. Stop making threads.

Yes Kobe has had help. /thread


How can someone make a thread like this, after a game we just witnessed? Just does not make sense.. Go to bed clown.


dang...you flustered...:oldlol:

[opps]

LOL at Kobe never having a good Finals. I'm out. It looks like the trolls have come to roost.
:lol

[Timmy D for MVP]

Jordan 5 Losing seasons as "that guy".....1/3 of his career as "that guy" he's been sub .500

your argument is silly

Uhh... I guess it would be if he didn't also have 6 championships.

[ImmortalD24]

The Kobe/ Anti- Kobe trolls are out in full force.. awesome.


I'm out. If only mods suspended/waived these constant agitators.

[LA_Showtime]

Lakers fan: Kobe is a great player and has had a great career. He's potentially a top 10-12 player.

Jordan fan: He's not better than Jordan. Stop saying he's better than Jordan. Jordan has superior stats and Kobe plays with 3 7 footers; I know Lamar Odom technically isn't a 7 footer but he's basically one.

Lakers fan: What are you talking about? No one said Kobe's better than Jordan.

Jordan fan: Troll! Everyone says Kobe's better than Jordan.

A moron enters the thread: Kobe is not better than Jordan. Kobe is not clutch. Dirk is better than Kobe. Nash is better than Kobe. I am better than Kobe. Fact.

A Kobe troll enters the thread: Kobe is better than Jordan. You suck.

---

Rinse and repeat.

That's basically ISH.:facepalm

[catch24]

Are you that insecure you have to keep making topics about Kobe and where he's placed in history?

Almost every knowledgeable bball head realizes he's a top 10 player of all-time, period.

[The Iron Fist]

Are you that insecure you have to keep making topics about Kobe and where he's placed in history?

Almost every knowledgeable bball head realizes he's a top 10 player of all-time, period.


Not insecure at all. Just curious as to the mindset of those who choose to either,

truly hate on one of the NBAs greatest,
or pretend to hate and try to be funny.

At this point, I'm leaning towards the thought that most who regurgitate the same spiel, pretend to hate and try to be funny and rile people up.

As the past three pages have proven, I have yet to see one of the posters I was hoping to get a response from.

[KingLeBronJames]

All the great players had won Championships with stacked teams. Look at the some of the All-Stars or great role players they played with.

Kobe had Shaq, Pau Gasol, Ron Artest, Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom.

Mike had Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Ron Harper, B.J. Armstrong and Kukoc.

Magic had Kareem, James Worthy, Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Norm Nixon, Bob McAdoo and Michael Cooper.

Bird had McHale, Parish, Walton, Tiny Archibald, Cedric Maxwell and Dennis Johnson.

Dwyane Wade had Shaq, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning and Antonie Walker.

Kevin Garnett had Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Rajon Rondo.

[The Iron Fist]

All the great players had won Championships with stacked teams. Look at the some of the All-Stars they played with or great role players.

Kobe had Shaq, Pau Gasol, Ron Artest, Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom.

Mike had Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Ron Harper, B.J. Armstrong and Kukoc.

Magic had Kareem, James Worthy, Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Norm Nixon, Bob McAdoo and Michael Cooper.

Bird had McHale, Parish, Walton, Tiny Archibald, Cedric Maxwell and Dennis Johnson.

Dwyane Wade had Shaq, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning and Antonie Walker.

Kevin Garnett had Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Rajon Rondo.


I think we all know that,

just wondering why Kobe is held to the ridiculous standard though and who he would need by his side to get credit from those who critique him the most.

[LA_Showtime]

I think we all know that,

just wondering why Kobe is held to the ridiculous standard though and who he would need by his side to get credit from those who critique him the most.

Because it's Kobe. Everyone apparently hates him. All they would have to do is look at Kobe's teammates numbers in the last two playoff runs to realize his team is not stacked. It's basically he and Gasol, with a little dose of Derek Fisher, Artest, and Odom at different times. This year is different though; if everyone stays healthy then I can totally see why someone would call the Lakers stacked.

[Micku]

I think the bottomline he isn't credited as much because he isn't good enough.

He isn't a Shaq who put incredibly monster numbers and nobody could stop.

He isn't a Bird/Magic who impacted the game in many ways and establish teamplay.

He isn't a Kareem.

He's not as good as those guys in their prime or had a impact on the floor like those guys did according to most people if we are talking about all time greats. Kobe fans like constantly compare to other greats, who people think/know are better. Fan battles are annoying, and Kobe probably has the most fans atm. Some are trolls, some don't pay attention to facts, and some don't pay attention to tangibles. It could be that most of the people here are young and didn't watch b-ball before 2000 because they make crazy statements or attempt to rewrite history in their mind.

IMO, Kobe is great, but isn't good enough. But we'll see. His career is still going strong and his game is still there, so who knows where he'll end up. If he keeps playing at a high level in a few years more in his 30s, then after he retires people will credit him more accurately.

---

Plus people hate him because he's a laker, has the most fans, and he is one of the best. If he's not on your team, then usually people hate.

But he is consider a top 10 player, and is still one of the best player in the league. So he is credited. Just people feel that there were better players in the past.

[OriginalNameGuy]

So, if rings are a team accomplishment,

nobody deserves credit for their championship accolades?

if they play a big role then they deserve some of the credit. Kobe's #s in the Finals are pretty underwhelming

[AlphaWolf24]

Lakers fan: Kobe is a great player and has had a great career. He's potentially a top 10-12 player.

Jordan stan: He's not better than Jordan. Stop saying he's better than Jordan. Jordan has superior stats and Kobe plays with 3 7 footers; I know Lamar Odom technically isn't a 7 footer but he's basically one.

Lakers fan: What are you talking about? No one said Kobe's better than Jordan.

Jordan stan: Troll! Everyone says Kobe's better than Jordan.Kobe has won "0" titles as "the man" Gasol and Horry were better then Kobe

A moron enters the thread: Kobe is not better than Jordan. Kobe is not clutch. Dirk is better than Kobe. Nash is better than Kobe. I am better than Kobe. Fact.

A Laker fan enters the thread: Kobe at 32 years old is very comparable to MJ's career at 32...similar players in similar roles...careers and skillset very similar...especially from ages 21 - 32 nearly identical

Jordan stan - NOOOOOOOOOOO! runs to 82games.com

---

Rinse and repeat.

That's basically ISH.:facepalm


fixed...4y'a:D

[Colby Brian]

Every championship team is loaded. Pretty stupid to get on his case for that. Although one thing he CAN do to gain more respect is actually have a good NBA Finals in his career. You know, finish the season strong. His 'help' gets talked about more because he always ends up being more helped than other superstars.

2009 finals, kobe played great
kobe 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg on 43%

mj had a bad finals in 1996 (27.3 ppg on 41.5% shooting), but stats dont always tell the whole story
http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/stats_finals.htm

[bdreason]

He has 5 rings as either the best or second best player on the team. It doesn't matter who he played with, that's an amazing accomplishment and puts Kobe in the top 10 all-time (10).

[LA_Showtime]

I know I'm going to be killed for this, but I would have loved to see how Kobe would've played as the man during his absolute peak as a player. I know I know he disappeared against Phoenix in game 7 and yada yada yada... but can you imagine that Kobe Bryant with Pau Gasol? Wow.

[0000000]

Are you that insecure you have to keep making topics about Kobe and where he's placed in history?

Almost every knowledgeable bball head realizes he's a top 10 player of all-time, period.

So what? That's supposed to like...make us satisfied? :D
Nope. This isn't over yet. :rockon:

[The Iron Fist]

if they play a big role then they deserve some of the credit. Kobe's #s in the Finals are pretty underwhelming


Again, his finals numbers are pretty underwhelming, but hes a two time FMVP.

What does that say about his teammates, the players on the losing team, and the rest of the league if his finals numbers are overwhelming?

Don't worry, I don't expect an answer.

However, since you're here,


who should Kobe have played with to get proper credit?

[whoartthou]

Magic and Kareem had a stacked team in the 80s. Bird had a stacked team with the Celts. Jordan had a stacked team in the 90s. It didn't affect their legacy.

Kobe is a great player. But...I think people are hesitate to put Kobe over the rest of the greats because they feel he isn't good enough. Which I can see why sometimes.
many times

[AlphaWolf24]

I think the bottomline he isn't credited is because he isn't good enough.

He isn't a Shaq who put incredibly monster numbers and nobody could stop.

He isn't a Bird/Magic who impacted the game in many ways and establish teamplay.

He isn't a Kareem.

He's not as good as those guys in their prime or had a impact on the floor like those guys did according to most people if we are talking about all time greats. Kobe fans like constantly compare to other greats, who people think/know are better. Fan battles are annoying, and Kobe probably has the most fans atm. Some are trolls, some don't pay attention to facts, and some don't pay attention to tangibles. It could be that most of the people here are young and didn't watch b-ball before 2000 because they make crazy statements or attempt to rewrite history in their mind.

IMO, Kobe is great, but isn't good enough. But we'll see. His career is still going strong and his game is still there, so who knows where he'll end up. If he keeps playing at a high level in a few years more in his 30s, then after he retires people will credit him more accurately.

---

Plus people hate him because he's a laker, has the most fans, and he is one of the best. If he's not on your team, then usually people hate.


01' playoff's 29PPG 6reb 5ast....those aren't monster?...those are better then Wade's 06' run:confusedshrug:

02' playoff's 27PPG 5ast 5reb:confusedshrug:

Kobe
29/6/6 on 49% eFG
30/5/5 on 50% eFG
???

Jordan
30/5/4 on 49% eFG
31/8/5 on 47% eFG
32/5/3 on 47% eFG

Kobe's numbers and trendline is actually just as good if not better than jordan's second threepeat..


:applause: good job at watching and recognizing game...

[The Iron Fist]

I think the bottomline he isn't credited as much because he isn't good enough.

He isn't a Shaq who put incredibly monster numbers and nobody could stop.

He isn't a Bird/Magic who impacted the game in many ways and establish teamplay.

He isn't a Kareem.

He's not as good as those guys in their prime or had a impact on the floor like those guys did according to most people if we are talking about all time greats. Kobe fans like constantly compare to other greats, who people think/know are better. Fan battles are annoying, and Kobe probably has the most fans atm. Some are trolls, some don't pay attention to facts, and some don't pay attention to tangibles. It could be that most of the people here are young and didn't watch b-ball before 2000 because they make crazy statements or attempt to rewrite history in their mind.

IMO, Kobe is great, but isn't good enough. But we'll see. His career is still going strong and his game is still there, so who knows where he'll end up. If he keeps playing at a high level in a few years more in his 30s, then after he retires people will credit him more accurately.

---

Plus people hate him because he's a laker, has the most fans, and he is one of the best. If he's not on your team, then usually people hate.

But he is consider a top 10 player, and is still one of the best player in the league. So he is credited. Just people feel that there were better players in the past.


Why does Kobe have to be any of those players you mentioned?

The majority of his peers say he is the best of his generation. lol, "he has no impact on the floor".

Really? So why then, in 06 and 07, in the preseason projections, did most people have the Lakers pegged for 11th and 12th in the west? If he had no impact, how did he get his teams to even make the playoffs in those years where mostly everyone thought he couldn't lead his team anywhere near the post season?

Who should he have won with in order to gain the respect from those who say "he had Shaq and Gasol".

[G-Funk]

I wanna know where Gasol ranks amongst the best 2nd options

[LA_Showtime]

I wanna know where Gasol ranks amongst the best 2nd options

That's another thing. I really don't think Kobe gets enough credit for helping Gasol mold his game and become a more aggressive player. While Gasol's numbers aren't necessarily better, his impact on the game has improved tremendously since joining the Lakers. The largest jump came after the 2008 Finals. Obviously Gasol deserves most of the credit for improving his game and becoming a tougher player, though.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I wanna know where Gasol ranks amongst the best 2nd options

Pretty damn high.

There are teams like those stacked Lakers teams in the 80's, or the Celtics, but he has to rank very high.

Actually I'm not sure why Laker fans don't talk about that more. Most of us agree Kobe is top-10. But even basketball guys have a hard time placing Gasol.

[LA_Showtime]

Pretty damn high.

There are teams like those stacked Lakers teams in the 80's, or the Celtics, but he has to rank very high.

Actually I'm not sure why Laker fans don't talk about that more. Most of us agree Kobe is top-10. But even basketball guys have a hard time placing Gasol.

It's almost impossible to rank Gasol at this point. Look at how much his stock has gone up since joining the Lakers. If they win another championship or two and he wins a Finals MVP then he could potentially move up 10-20 (maybe even more) spots. He's definitely a lock for the hall of fame.

[AlphaWolf24]

I wanna know where Gasol ranks amongst the best 2nd options

way behind Pippen , Jones ,Kareem , McHale , Worthy ,Drexler , Lebron , Ginobli , etc.

[Timmy D for MVP]

It's almost impossible to rank Gasol at this point. Look at how much his stock has gone up since joining the Lakers. If they win another championship or two and he wins a Finals MVP then he could potentially move up 10-20 (maybe even more) spots. He's definitely a lock for the hall of fame.

I agree. However it is clear to me personally his greatness, and has been clear for a very long while now.

But it seems other people really don't want to call him great. I don't understand that at all.

[G-Funk]

I remember nobody wanted Gasol on their team...

[LA_Showtime]

I agree. However it is clear to me personally his greatness, and has been clear for a very long while now.

But it seems other people really don't want to call him great. I don't understand that at all.

I just hate when people say he was this overlooked, superstar caliber player in Memphis. He's done a complete 180 since coming to LA. He's always had the skills to a dominant player, but before he lacked the necessary toughness and was wasting away in Memphis.

[Poochymama]

Lakers fan: Kobe is a great player and has had a great career. He's potentially a top 10-12 player.

Jordan fan: He's not better than Jordan. Stop saying he's better than Jordan. Jordan has superior stats and Kobe plays with 3 7 footers; I know Lamar Odom technically isn't a 7 footer but he's basically one.

Lakers fan: What are you talking about? No one said Kobe's better than Jordan.

Jordan fan: Troll! Everyone says Kobe's better than Jordan.

A moron enters the thread: Kobe is not better than Jordan. Kobe is not clutch. Dirk is better than Kobe. Nash is better than Kobe. I am better than Kobe. Fact.

A Kobe troll enters the thread: Kobe is better than Jordan. You suck.

---

Rinse and repeat.

That's basically ISH.:facepalm
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even the most die hard kobe fanatics tend to agree that Jordan > Kobe. Most of them are are just trying to push "Kobe top 5" or something along those lines, but somehow it always turns into Kobe vs Jordan.

Well, at least until this new AlphaWolf guy came along. He and his whole Kobe > Jordan, afro Kobe > Prime Shaq represent a whole new breed of Kobe fanatics.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Trade these players

Artest for Grant Hill
Gasol for Channing Frye
Bynum for Robin Lopez
Odom for Gortat
Shannon Brown for Vince Carter

Then hey he ****ing deserved that shit. Oh and pretend Kobe is white like Steve Nash in the racist NBA, so he don't goto the foul line if he gets breathed on. Then he tottally deserves that shit.

[LA_Showtime]

Trade these players

Artest for Grant Hill
Gasol for Channing Frye
Bynum for Robin Lopez
Odom for Gortat
Shannon Brown for Vince Carter

Then hey he ****ing deserved that shit. Oh and pretend Kobe is white like Steve Nash in the racist NBA, so he don't goto the foul line if he gets breathed on. Then he tottally deserves that shit.

What are you on about? :oldlol: Thanks for contributing nothing to this thread...

This guy is the moron who enters the thread.

[Rashard]

To some people ( those with an agenda) Kobe would have to carry 14 absolute scrubs to a title before they will give him any credit. Eventhough no player in the history of the game has carried 14 scrubs to a title, Kobe would have to be the first, one and only. Kobe has done it all and yet those with an agenda will continue to try to belittle his accomplishments. No matter what he does, it's never enough of some people's eyes.

He's won titles as a first option, a 1A option and a second option. He carried a scrub filled roster ( Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, Chucky Atkins and Luke Walton) to a playoff birth and a near upset in a stacked Western Conference at the time. He's not MVP worthy when he straps a bunch of scrubs on his back and he's not MVP worthy when he has talented players around him and leads them to multiple championships. Nothing is ever enough. Reason being? Agenda.

[icewill36]

no one is saying kobe isnt great. the thing is people try to discredit others for not winning rings when they havent had the same level of help. people act like other great players in the league couldnt have won on those stacked teams therefore kobe is somehow superior.

[LA_Showtime]

no one is saying kobe isnt great. the thing is people try to discredit others for not winning rings when they havent had the same level of help. people act like other great players in the league couldnt have won on those stacked teams therefore kobe is somehow superior.

Kobe's the only guy who gets the "Well if you replace him with so and so they'd still win" treatment. :oldlol: I love how people assume Vince Carter or T-Mac would have produced the same results, especially since everyone calls those players lazy and career underachievers, the exact opposite of Kobe Bryant.

[Micku]

01' playoff's 29PPG 6reb 5ast....those aren't monster?...those are better then Wade's 06' run:confusedshrug:

02' playoff's 27PPG 5ast 5reb:confusedshrug:

Kobe
29/6/6 on 49% eFG
30/5/5 on 50% eFG
???

Jordan
30/5/4 on 49% eFG
31/8/5 on 47% eFG
32/5/3 on 47% eFG

Kobe's numbers and trendline is actually just as good if not better than jordan's second threepeat..


:applause: good job at watching and recognizing game...

Other legends:

I wasn't talking about playoffs and I wasn't comparing Jordan, but I was talking about other greats. I think he probably isn't consider as impressive. Compare Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Shaq. Not only in their prime they pulled monster numbers in the regular season, they just had a different impact on the floor than Kobe. Nothing wrong with that. Kobe is his own player, and a different player than them. People hold that deal those guys more dear, and their legacies are already been done. So far, most of them had a better peak and prime than Kobe did. But I think you can debate about some, so whatever.


Jordan:
And with Jordan, I think some of Kobe's runs in the playoffs are comparable with old Jordan. That shows his mark as a player. While I don't think Kobe numbers are necessary better, they are comparable. There are also things that go on the floor that you would have to watch and everything that doesn't show on the stat sheet.

But again, it is 32-35ish Jordan you are comparing to Kobe's best playoffs runs. It shows how great Jordan was. Prime Jordan was crazy, and shows the gap between them.

Using the stats similar to your comparison of them:

Jordan:
34.8/7.0/7.6 .523% eFG
36.3/7.1/4.7 .533% eFG
34.5/6.2/5.8 .514% eFG
31.1/6.4/8.4 .537% eFG

Jordan wasn't human.

And there are more playoff runs that he did that were like that. Not to mention if you go into detail on his playoff series. He set the bar and records for many things.

But I don't want this to be Jordan vs Kobe thing. I want to talk about why Kobe isn't credited as greatly as other players.




Why does Kobe have to be any of those players you mentioned?

The majority of his peers say he is the best of his generation. lol, "he has no impact on the floor".

Really? So why then, in 06 and 07, in the preseason projections, did most people have the Lakers pegged for 11th and 12th in the west? If he had no impact, how did he get his teams to even make the playoffs in those years where mostly everyone thought he couldn't lead his team anywhere near the post season?

Who should he have won with in order to gain the respect from those who say "he had Shaq and Gasol".


Kobe doesn't have to be compared to them, but people are constantly being compared. And if you are talking about what place does Kobe have in the all time greats, then you must talk about them.

And I didn't say that Kobe doesn't have impact. I said that Kobe possibly does not have the impact that other legends had. And I think he is probably the best of his generation. He has an incredibly longitude. I thought he may have drop down already, but he is still one of the best.

Kobe is still one of the best and top 10 player. He gets his due. He'll be judged accurately when he retires. And he is on one of the best teams around right now, so it's fun.

[AlphaWolf24]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even the most die hard kobe fanatics tend to agree that Jordan > Kobe. Most of them are are just trying to push "Kobe top 5" or something along those lines, but somehow it always turns into Kobe vs Jordan.

Well, at least until this new AlphaWolf guy came along. He and his whole Kobe > Jordan, afro Kobe > Prime Shaq represent a whole new breed of Kobe fanatics.


yeah it's on ESPN but I'm the only one saying it...:rolleyes:

I've been saying Kobe was going to win without Shaq since 06' all over the interwebz.....




next..

[#1SportsFan86]

To some people ( those with an agenda) Kobe would have to carry 14 absolute scrubs to a title before they will give him any credit. Eventhough no player in the history of the game has carried 14 scrubs to a title, Kobe would have to be the first, one and only. Kobe has done it all and yet those with an agenda will continue to try to belittle his accomplishments. No matter what he does, it's never enough of some people's eyes.

He's won titles as a first option, a 1A option and a second option. He carried a scrub filled roster ( Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, Chucky Atkins and Luke Walton) to a playoff birth and a near upset in a stacked Western Conference at the time. He's not MVP worthy when he straps a bunch of scrubs on his back and he's not MVP worthy when he has talented players around him and leads them to multiple championships. Nothing is ever enough. Reason being? Agenda.

Stacked Western Conference?...the was wasn't even that stacked back in the 05-06 season...the Spurs, Mavs and Suns where the top teams in the west back then, the is west WAY stronger now then it was back in 05-06.

[crosso√er]

Other legends:

I wasn't talking about playoffs and I wasn't comparing Jordan, but I was talking about other greats. I think he probably isn't consider as impressive. Compare Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Shaq. Not only in their prime they pulled monster numbers in the regular season, they just had a different impact on the floor than Kobe. Nothing wrong with that. Kobe is his own player, and a different player than them. People hold that deal those guys more dear, and their legacies are already been done. So far, most of them had a better peak and prime than Kobe did. But I think you can debate about some, so whatever.


Jordan:
And with Jordan, I think some of Kobe's runs in the playoffs are comparable with old Jordan. That shows his mark as a player. While I don't think Kobe numbers are necessary better, they are comparable. There are also things that go on the floor that you would have to watch and everything that doesn't show on the stat sheet.

But again, it is 32-35ish Jordan you are comparing to Kobe's best playoffs runs. It shows how great Jordan was. Prime Jordan was crazy, and shows the gap between them.

Using the stats similar to your comparison of them:

Jordan:
34.8/7.0/7.6 .523% eFG
36.3/7.1/4.7 .533% eFG
34.5/6.2/5.8 .514% eFG
31.1/6.4/8.4 .537% eFG

Jordan wasn't human.

And there are more playoff runs that he did that were like that. Not to mention if you go into detail on his playoff series. He set the bar and records for many things.

But I don't want this to be Jordan vs Kobe thing. I want to talk about why Kobe isn't credited as greatly as other players.



Kobe doesn't have to be compared to them, but people are constantly being compared. And if you are talking about what place does Kobe have in the all time greats, then you must talk about them.

And I didn't say that Kobe doesn't have impact. I said that Kobe possibly does not have the impact that other legends had. And I think he is probably the best of his generation. He has an incredibly longitude. I thought he may have drop down already, but he is still one of the best.

Kobe is still one of the best and top 10 player. He gets his due. He'll be judged accurately when he retires. And he is on one of the best teams around right now, so it's fun.

I like your conclusion man, and it's so very true. I remember watching basketball in the 90's and even the late 80's and remember the same regurgitated debates. Fans insulting Jordan because Bird is their favorite and vice versa. A player is never as appreciated until he retires; once he finally sets sail, he will be fairly judged based on the career he had.

No point in comparing or arguing about who's better then whom; when the dust settles, Kobe will be appreciated a lot more from the general fan base. Only then can we fairly evaluate his place among the All-Time greats; he is not even remotely finished with his career, he can still accumulate quite a few more personal accolades & championship banners.

[icewill36]

Kobe's the only guy who gets the "Well if you replace him with so and so they'd still win" treatment. :oldlol: I love how people assume Vince Carter or T-Mac would have produced the same results, especially since everyone calls those players lazy and career underachievers, the exact opposite of Kobe Bryant.

no hes not... when people try to act like ginobili is elite, others remind them there are plenty of other guards who could have won titles on the spurs in his place.

theyre not underachievers in my eyes because they both have had serious injuries that hurt their progress and consistency as players. kobe has been fortunate to be apart of a great organization and that he hasnt had any serious knee or back injuries.

[Poochymama]

Kobe's the only guy who gets the "Well if you replace him with so and so they'd still win" treatment. :oldlol: I love how people assume Vince Carter or T-Mac would have produced the same results, especially since everyone calls those players lazy and career underachievers, the exact opposite of Kobe Bryant.

To be fair I think that's mainly because Shaq was just so damn good. It's very hard to find another player as good as Kobe that could be replaced by another player and that players team still win the championship.

You can do that with many lesser players to a certain extent. For example, you could probably replace Pippen on the Bulls 91-93 with several other players in the league and the Bulls still win. You could probably replace Gasol on these past few Lakers teams and still get a championship, but Gasol/Pippen are no Kobe, and it's considerably harder to do this for players of Kobe's caliber. Maybe replacing Wade on the current Heat?(if they figure things out and actually live up to the hype). IMO that's more of a testament to how great Shaq was than it is a knock on Kobe.

[Nero Tulip]

Horrible, lazy ass troll OP = 5 pages.

Only on ISH...

[Harion]

he should play with

AI's team when Sixers reached finals
Nash's team last year and the years they reached WCF
last year's Cavs
Nets with Jason Kidd when they reached FINALS

he should replace the main man on each team and see where he takes them.
if he wins, he'd deserve every credit that would be given to him. the problem is, Kobe on those teams would probably win jack shit. Kobe on a weak team would win nothing and would not even get past conference finals.

and ppl diss Lebron for failing on the Cavs. smh. Kobe on that team won't even get out 1st round.

[AlphaWolf24]

Other legends:

I wasn't talking about playoffs and I wasn't comparing Jordan, but I was talking about other greats. I think he probably isn't consider as impressive. Compare Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Shaq. Not only in their prime they pulled monster numbers in the regular season, they just had a different impact on the floor than Kobe. Nothing wrong with that. Kobe is his own player, and a different player than them. People hold that deal those guys more dear, and their legacies are already been done. So far, most of them had a better peak and prime than Kobe did. But I think you can debate about some, so whatever.


Jordan:
And with Jordan, I think some of Kobe's runs in the playoffs are comparable with old Jordan. That shows his mark as a player. While I don't think Kobe numbers are necessary better, they are comparable. There are also things that go on the floor that you would have to watch and everything that doesn't show on the stat sheet.

But again, it is 32-35ish Jordan you are comparing to Kobe's best playoffs runs. It shows how great Jordan was. Prime Jordan was crazy, and shows the gap between them.

Using the stats similar to your comparison of them:

Jordan:
34.8/7.0/7.6 .523% eFG
36.3/7.1/4.7 .533% eFG
34.5/6.2/5.8 .514% eFG
31.1/6.4/8.4 .537% eFG

Jordan wasn't human.

And there are more playoff runs that he did that were like that. Not to mention if you go into detail on his playoff series. He set the bar and records for many things.

But I don't want this to be Jordan vs Kobe thing. I want to talk about why Kobe isn't credited as greatly as other players.



Kobe doesn't have to be compared to them, but people are constantly being compared. And if you are talking about what place does Kobe have in the all time greats, then you must talk about them.

And I didn't say that Kobe doesn't have impact. I said that Kobe possibly does not have the impact that other legends had. And I think he is probably the best of his generation. He has an incredibly longitude. I thought he may have drop down already, but he is still one of the best.

Kobe is still one of the best and top 10 player. He gets his due. He'll be judged accurately when he retires. And he is on one of the best teams around right now, so it's fun.

Yes I understand what you are trying to say...But understand what I'm trying to say..

Kobe has been playing and winning for alot for Championship teams then MJ....up until Kobe's current age "32"...winning has to factor in somewhere :confusedshrug:

Your comparing MJ's prime in a totally different era....then you compared first 3 years of Finals Runs of MJ's....in that time frame your saying MJ's prime 21 - 32..Kobe has been to 7 NBA Finals...MJ only 3


Yes Prime MJ was crazy...but he wasn't "winning" on Kobe's level either...that has to factor in...

Kobe's winning alot more has to weigh heavier then MJ's 3 - 4 points a game a rebound and an assist.

Kobe has been a 28.5PPG 5ast 5reb player for over a decade....and 7 NBA Finals.....in that same time frame MJ had been to 3.....marginal stats should not be viewed as more of an impact then Winning IMO.


example:

Player A over 10 years = 28.5PPG 6reb 5AST /9 winning seasons , 7 NBA Finals and 5 Titles

Player B over 10 years = 31PPG 6reb 6ast/ 7 winning seasons 3 NBA Finals 3 Titles

Player A has a littler impact???....really?:confusedshrug:

[Poochymama]

I've been saying Kobe was going to win without Shaq since 06' all over the interwebz.....



A logical prediction, I think most people who really watched basketball at the time that Kobe's championship runs weren't going to end forever just because Shaq left. Kobe is a good enough player to have a team built around him as the best player and that team be of championship caliber.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Nash
Shannon Brown
Artest
Gasol
Bynum

Vs.

Dragic
Kobe
Marion
Amar'e
Lopez

Let us get a pick up game going and just study it.

[LA_Showtime]

no hes not... when people try to act like ginobili is elite, others remind them there are plenty of other guards who could have won titles on the spurs in his place.

theyre not underachievers in my eyes because they both have had serious injuries that hurt their progress and consistency as players. kobe has been fortunate to be apart of a great organization and that he hasnt had any serious knee or back injuries.

Are you really comparing Kobe and Ginobili? They aren't in the same class. I guess I should re-phrase and say Kobe's the only player in his tier to get that treatment.

Let's not act like Kobe hasn't had injuries of his own. His hand is a mess. He doesn't have any cartilage in his knees. I can understand T-Mac's injury woes but what exactly has Vince overcome? All I'm saying is people are quick to dismiss what he brought to the Lakers when in reality few players would have been able to do what he did.

[AlphaWolf24]

Nash
Shannon Brown
Artest
Gasol
Bynum

Vs.

Dragic
Kobe
Marion
Amar'e
Lopez

Let us get a pick up game going and just study it.

Kobe and Gortat = 3peat

[LA_Showtime]

To be fair I think that's mainly because Shaq was just so damn good. It's very hard to find another player as good as Kobe that could be replaced by another player and that players team still win the championship.

You can do that with many lesser players to a certain extent. For example, you could probably replace Pippen on the Bulls 91-93 with several other players in the league and the Bulls still win. You could probably replace Gasol on these past few Lakers teams and still get a championship, but Gasol/Pippen are no Kobe, and it's considerably harder to do this for players of Kobe's caliber. Maybe replacing Wade on the current Heat?(if they figure things out and actually live up to the hype). IMO that's more of a testament to how great Shaq was than it is a knock on Kobe.

I doubt here ANYONE saying "Well if you replaced Gasol with so and so the Lakers would have won anyway." You wanna know why? Gasol has been invaluable to what the Lakers have done over the past 3 seasons and few players could have duplicated what he brought to the team.

[bl2k8]

he should play with

AI's team when Sixers reached finals
Nash's team last year and the years they reached WCF
last year's Cavs
Nets with Jason Kidd when they reached FINALS

he should replace the main man on each team and see where he takes them.
if he wins, he'd deserve every credit that would be given to him. the problem is, Kobe on those teams would probably win jack shit. Kobe on a weak team would win nothing and would not even get past conference finals.

and ppl diss Lebron for failing on the Cavs. smh. Kobe on that team won't even get out 1st round.
ths shyt right here is exactly what the anti kobe movement does, argue what if's as facts to downplay him

[Poochymama]

example:

Player A over 10 years = 28.5PPG 6reb 5AST /9 winning seasons , 7 NBA Finals and 5 Titles

Player B over 10 years = 31PPG 6reb 6ast/ 7 winning seasons 3 NBA Finals 3 Titles

Player A has a littler impact???....really?:confusedshrug:

Completely and totally depends on the amount of help they had. If player A had considerably more help **cough** Prime Shaq **cough**cough**, then yes I would say player B had the bigger impact.

Your argument fails to take into account the fact that Player A and Player B are not solely responsible for their teams success/lack of success. For example, take two identical players, for simplicities sake lets say we can clone current Kobe and put his cloned version on to the Wizards.

Wizards Kobe and Lakers Kobe are the exact same players and have the exact same amount of impact on their respective teams, but Lakers Kobe's teams would do much better. Lakers Kobe would have WAY more winning seasons and WAY more finals appearances even though Lakers Kobe is no better than Wizards Kobe. Using your judging criteria you would say Lakers Kobe is the better player, because his TEAM had better success, which would be wrong.

Even more to the point, take Kobe Bryant off of the Lakers and put him on the Wizards. Now take Manu of the Spurs and start him at the SG for the Lakers. The Lakers would still be a 50 win team, while the Wizards most likely be a 30-35 win team. Disregarding the age factor, Manu could easily lead this Lakers team to 7 "Winning Seasons" over the next 7 years where as Kobe would struggle to see 1 "Winning Season" over the next 7 years. Does that mean Manu is the better player than Kobe? No, it just means

(Manu + Lakers) > (Kobe + Wizards)

But, if we are to use your judging criteria, we would have to say Manu > Kobe because he led his team to more success, even though that is obviously a false statement.

Similarly Kobe's early teams having more success than Jordan's early teams doesn't mean Kobe > Jordan, it just means

(Kobe + early Lakers) > (Jordan + early Bulls)

and when you look at it in context, it actually means very little.
Jordan was drafted to the WORST team in the league, Kobe was drafted to the 4th BEST team in the League. Of course Kobe's team's had more success:facepalm Hell I'd be willing to bet you could even take Kobe completely off of those teams and the Lakers would still have more success than Jordan's early Bulls teams.

Use some logic/context :no:

[whoartthou]

Yes I understand what you are trying to say...But understand what I'm trying to say..

Kobe has been playing and winning for alot for Championship teams then MJ....up until Kobe's current age "32"...winning has to factor in somewhere :confusedshrug:

Your comparing MJ's prime in a totally different era....then you compared first 3 years of Finals Runs of MJ's....in that time frame your saying MJ's prime 21 - 32..Kobe has been to 7 NBA Finals...MJ only 3


Yes Prime MJ was crazy...but he wasn't "winning" on Kobe's level either...that has to factor in...

Kobe's winning alot more has to weigh heavier then MJ's 3 - 4 points a game a rebound and an assist.

Kobe has been a 28.5PPG 5ast 5reb player for over a decade....and 7 NBA Finals.....in that same time frame MJ had been to 3.....marginal stats should not be viewed as more of an impact then Winning IMO.


example:

Player A over 10 years = 28.5PPG 6reb 5AST /9 winning seasons , 7 NBA Finals and 5 Titles

Player B over 10 years = 31PPG 6reb 6ast/ 7 winning seasons 3 NBA Finals 3 Titles

Player A has a littler impact???....really?:confusedshrug:

what you conveniently liketo leave out when you are talking about kobe "winning" more is the fact that KOBE always had great teams. Shaq in his first 3 peat, and now a monster line up of gasol/odom/bynum/artest? Are you fking kidding me?

[whoartthou]

Completely and totally depends on the amount of help they had. If player A had considerably more help **cough** Prime Shaq **cough**cough**, then yes I would say player B had the bigger impact.

Your argument fails to take into account the fact that Player A and Player B are not solely responsible for their teams success/lack of success. For example, take two identical players, for simplicities sake lets say we can clone current Kobe and put his cloned version on to the Wizards.

Wizards Kobe and Lakers Kobe are the exact same players and have the exact same amount of impact on their respective teams, but Lakers Kobe's teams would do much better. Lakers Kobe would have WAY more winning seasons and WAY more finals appearances even though Lakers Kobe is no better than Wizards Kobe. Using your judging criteria you would say Lakers Kobe is the better player, because his TEAM had better success, which would be wrong.

Even more to the point, take Kobe Bryant off of the Lakers and put him on the Wizards. Now take Manu of the Spurs and start him at the SG for the Lakers. The Lakers would still be a 50 win team, while the Wizards most likely be a 30-35 win team. Disregarding the age factor, Manu could easily lead this Lakers team to 7 "Winning Seasons" over the next 7 years where as Kobe would struggle to see 1 "Winning Season" over the next 7 years. Does that mean Manu is the better player than Kobe? No, it just means

(Manu + Lakers) > (Kobe + Wizards)

But, if we are to use your judging criteria, we would have to say Manu > Kobe because he led his team to more success, even though that is obviously a false statement.

Similarly Kobe's early teams having more success than Jordan's early teams doesn't mean Kobe > Jordan, it just means

(Kobe + early Lakers) > (Jordan + early Bulls)

and when you look at it in context, it actually means very little.
Jordan was drafted to the WORST team in the league, Kobe was drafted to the 4th BEST team in the League. Of course Kobe's team's had more success:facepalm Hell I'd be willing to bet you could even take Kobe completely off of those teams and the Lakers would still have more success than Jordan's early Bulls teams.

Use some logic/context :no:
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :applause:

you can't expect these kobe stans to use logic or context. If they do, kobe does not look as agreat :confusedshrug:

[Micku]

Kobe has been playing and winning for alot for Championship teams then MJ....up until Kobe's current age "32"...winning has to factor in somewhere :confusedshrug:

Your comparing MJ's prime in a totally different era....then you compared first 3 years of Finals Runs of MJ's....in that time frame your saying MJ's prime 21 - 32..Kobe has been to 7 NBA Finals...MJ only 3


You're right it was a different era. But compare their eFG. The league now and the league back then had basically the same eFG. The pacing was different and the shot selection was different as well, which you can see by the FG%. There were different teams and different situations. You can argue that the teams in the 80s were legendary because they were mostly all stacked. You would get fooled by their record and say that they suck, but it's not that the teams suck, it's that there's a lot of competition. More competition means more losing.

I'll address the nba finals issue below.



Yes Prime MJ was crazy...but he wasn't "winning" on Kobe's level either...that has to factor in...

Kobe's winning alot more has to weigh heavier then MJ's 3 - 4 points a game a rebound and an assist.

Kobe has been a 28.5PPG 5ast 5reb player for over a decade....and 7 NBA Finals.....in that same time frame MJ had been to 3.....marginal stats should not be viewed as more of an impact then Winning IMO.


example:

Player A over 10 years = 28.5PPG 6reb 5AST /9 winning seasons , 7 NBA Finals and 5 Titles

Player B over 10 years = 31PPG 6reb 6ast/ 7 winning seasons 3 NBA Finals 3 Titles

Player A has a littler impact???....really?:confusedshrug:

The winning part has a lot to deal with many details that we would have this long debate about, ok? So, I'm going to toss in my 2 cents of why Kobe winning is different than Jordan winning, and go back to why you can say that Kobe is not as credited as other legends.


Jordan:
The main reason why Jordan wasn't winning two reasons: competition and team. Kobe had Shaq, who was the best center and best player of the league during those 3 championships. Jordan did not have a player on that caliber. Kobe situation was VERY similar to Magic. Magic had Kareem, who was not only the best center, but the best player in the early 80s.

People criticize Jordan for not winning like Bird or Magic back then too. But in 1993, they compared him to other greats on their all-stars. Jordan also had significantly less all-stars (former and current at the time) than Magic and Bird. This would apply to Kobe as well. Especially when you have to argue about who is the man on the team with Shaq during the first 3 championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGHhahbgf0#t=02m40s

Now Magic also been more accomplish than anybody except for possibly Russell. In his rookie year till the time he first retired, an 11 year span, Magic been in 9 finals, won 5 championships, three time MVP, three time Finals MVP, ten time all-star (I think), and ten All-NBA First and second team.

Was he better than Jordan when Jordan retired in 93? Not really, although some argue it, the majority said Jordan was better. People in 1993 knew that team matter. People were already calling Jordan possibly the best ever in 1993. So, why should we believe Kobe is somehow the better player or winner when Jordan did more legendary things than him when he had a team, especially since people always say Shaq was the man on the Lakers?

Other Legends:

Usually centers have more impact than wingplayers. People like Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and Russell. Most of them had impact in ways that Kobe didn't achieve. Bird also turned a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year, and won a championship in his second year. Magic was with Kareem on his championship run, but also did something legendary in his rookie year. He helped the Lakers when Kareem turned super old.

Kobe is own player and help out his team in his own way, but those guys were legends. Kobe could be a great longitude type player, so we'll see.

[dillondavis]

Guys why is it kobes fault he was a 17 yr old kid that got drafted onto a team that had the moat dominant force in history
I just cant understand how he loses points for that
Would people rather have him be an iverson "the mAn" your whole
Career then end up in turkey? Gtfo he was a 21 yr old kid who was a major piece of a dynasty i think thats how his shaq legacy be remembered A Kid being a 1b on a dynasty i think thats saying alot??

[Poochymama]

I doubt here ANYONE saying "Well if you replaced Gasol with so and so the Lakers would have won anyway." You wanna know why? Gasol has been invaluable to what the Lakers have done over the past 3 seasons and few players could have duplicated what he brought to the team.

Agree to disagree I guess, while Gasol is invaluable and most certainly an integral piece of this Lakers team, I don't see him as irreplaceable. For instance, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Lakers could replace Gasol with Howard/Stoudemire or maybe even someone like Boozer and still be championship favorites. I"m not saying Gasol isn't important(he is), but Kobe is still the engine, and the driving force behind the team(even more so than Shaq was the engine of the 3-peat lakers).

[whoartthou]

You're right it was a different era. But compare their eFG. The league now and the league back then had basically the same eFG. The pacing was different and the shot selection was different as well, which you can see by the FG%. There were different teams and different situations. You can argue that the teams in the 80s were legendary because they were mostly all stacked. You would get fooled by their record and say that they suck, but it's not that the teams suck, it's that there's a lot of competition. More competition means more losing.

I'll address the nba finals issue below.




The winning part has a lot to deal with many details that we would have this long debate about, ok? So, I'm going to toss in my 2 cents of why Kobe winning is different than Jordan winning, and go back to why you can say that Kobe is not as credited as other legends.


Jordan:
The main reason why Jordan wasn't winning two reasons: competition and team. Kobe had Shaq, who was the best center and best player of the league during those 3 championships. Jordan did not have a player on that caliber. Kobe situation was VERY similar to Magic. Magic had Kareem, who was not only the best center, but the best player in the early 80s.

People criticize Jordan for not winning like Bird or Magic back then too. But in 1993, they compared him to other greats on their all-stars. Jordan also had significantly less all-stars (former and current at the time) than Magic and Bird. This would apply to Kobe as well. Especially when you have to argue about who is the man on the team with Shaq during the first 3 championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGHhahbgf0#t=02m40s

Now Magic also been more accomplish than anybody except for possibly Russell. In his rookie year till the time he first retired, an 11 year span, Magic been in 9 finals, won 5 championships, three time MVP, three time Finals MVP, ten time all-star (I think), and ten All-NBA First and second team.

Was he better than Jordan when Jordan retired in 93? Not really, although some argue it, the majority said Jordan was better. People in 1993 knew that team matter in 1993. People were already calling Jordan possibly the best ever in 1993. So, why should we believe Kobe is somehow the better player or winner when Jordan did more legendary things than him when he had a team, especially since people always say Shaq was the man on the Lakers?

Other Legends:

Usually centers have more impact than wingplayers. People like Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and Russell. Most of them had impact in ways that Kobe didn't achieve. Bird also turned a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year, and won a championship in his second year. Magic was with Kareem on his championship run, but also did something legendary in his rookie year. He helped the Lakers when Kareem turned super old.

Kobe is own player and help out his team in his own way, but those guys were legends. Kobe could be a great longitude type player, so we'll see.

could not have stated it any better

[whoartthou]

Agree to disagree I guess, while Gasol is invaluable and most certainly an integral piece of this Lakers team, I don't see him as irreplaceable. For instance, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Lakers could replace Gasol with Howard/Stoudemire or maybe even someone like Boozer and still be championship favorites. I"m not saying Gasol isn't important(he is), but Kobe is still the engine, and the driving force behind the team(even more so than Shaq was the engine of the 3-peat lakers).

did you just say replace gasol with howard? OF COURSE they would win chips with howard, hes only the best center in the league :roll: :roll:

But with boozer? :no:

[momo]

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/MWSPHOTO/deadhorse.gif

[Anaximandro1]

According to basketball experts,the Spurs (57-13) have no chance at all against the Lakers,despite being the best Spurs team of the entire Duncan era by a long shot.That's all you need to know.

[Ne 1]

Kobe's the only guy who gets the "Well if you replace him with so and so they'd still win" treatment. :oldlol: I love how people assume Vince Carter or T-Mac would have produced the same results, especially since everyone calls those players lazy and career underachievers, the exact opposite of Kobe Bryant.

Funny, all the talk about Kobe supposedly being just some dispensable side-kick that rode Shaq's coattails to 3 rings, and could have eaisly been replaced by any other All-Star swingman/combo guard in the league back then......

However when Shaq was quietly asking for himself or Bryant to be traded during the 2001 season, the Lakers front office told O'Neal that it would be him that would be gone before Kobe.

[asdf1990]

Jordan only superstar wing player to win multiple rings without a dominant big. Go through all the championship teams and u will see they had a dominant big. Jordan's bulls are the only team to win rings without one, that is one more reason he is the GOAT. 2 legit mobile 7 footers on one team in a league that has like four 7 footers who aren't snails or liabilities on one end of the floor not impressive.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Jordan only superstar wing player to win multiple rings without a dominant big. Go through all the championship teams and u will see they had a dominant big. Jordan's bulls are the only team to win rings without one, that is one more reason he is the GOAT. 2 legit mobile 7 footers on one team in a league that has like four 7 footers who aren't snails or liabilities on one end of the floor not impressive.

Bynum is mobile? :confusedshrug:

And yes Jordan didn't have a dominant big but he had a dominant rebounder in Rodman and another elite wing player in Pippen. Kobe has never played with another wing near the caliber of Pippen. What Jordan's team lacked, they made up for in other areas.

It isn't like the Bulls were always facing dominant bigs (7 footers) in the finals anyway. They beat the Lakers who had sophomore Vlade Divac as the starting center, the Blazers who had Kevin Duckworth, and Phoenix who had Oliver Miller and 33 year old Tom Chambers :oldlol: and that was just the first 3 peat.

We all know Jordan was dominant but don't emphasize the fact that he didn't have a dominant post presence because the Bulls really never had to defend a dominant post player. It wasn't like they played against young Shaq or Olajuwan. Unless you count 6'6'' Barkley as a dominant big. The only time they really had to face a dominant big man was when they played the Knicks in the playoffs. And even then, the Jordan-less Bulls were one bad call away from beating them in the ECSF. Another dominant "big" they had to face in the finals was Kemp but that was about it.

BTW when did Pau Gasol become dominant? :confusedshrug:

[The Iron Fist]

Jordan only superstar wing player to win multiple rings without a dominant big. Go through all the championship teams and u will see they had a dominant big. Jordan's bulls are the only team to win rings without one, that is one more reason he is the GOAT. 2 legit mobile 7 footers on one team in a league that has like four 7 footers who aren't snails or liabilities on one end of the floor not impressive.


So, you're going to act like this guy never existed?


http://media.lunch.com/d/d7/220198.jpg?2

That whole idea of "did it without a dominant big" is such garbage anyways when you consider the fact that the Bulls had the wings locked down with the two best players of their era. Then, you add in some solid rebounding by Grant and tough D by Cartwright, and no dominant big is needed. Throw Dennis Rodman into the mix,

and no dominant big is needed.


Just like Isaiah Thomas with Bill Laimbeer, Edwards, Salley, Rodman etc.

[The Iron Fist]

You're right it was a different era. But compare their eFG. The league now and the league back then had basically the same eFG. The pacing was different and the shot selection was different as well, which you can see by the FG%. There were different teams and different situations. You can argue that the teams in the 80s were legendary because they were mostly all stacked. You would get fooled by their record and say that they suck, but it's not that the teams suck, it's that there's a lot of competition. More competition means more losing.

I'll address the nba finals issue below.




The winning part has a lot to deal with many details that we would have this long debate about, ok? So, I'm going to toss in my 2 cents of why Kobe winning is different than Jordan winning, and go back to why you can say that Kobe is not as credited as other legends.


Jordan:
The main reason why Jordan wasn't winning two reasons: competition and team. Kobe had Shaq, who was the best center and best player of the league during those 3 championships. Jordan did not have a player on that caliber. Kobe situation was VERY similar to Magic. Magic had Kareem, who was not only the best center, but the best player in the early 80s.

People criticize Jordan for not winning like Bird or Magic back then too. But in 1993, they compared him to other greats on their all-stars. Jordan also had significantly less all-stars (former and current at the time) than Magic and Bird. This would apply to Kobe as well. Especially when you have to argue about who is the man on the team with Shaq during the first 3 championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGHhahbgf0#t=02m40s

Now Magic also been more accomplish than anybody except for possibly Russell. In his rookie year till the time he first retired, an 11 year span, Magic been in 9 finals, won 5 championships, three time MVP, three time Finals MVP, ten time all-star (I think), and ten All-NBA First and second team.

Was he better than Jordan when Jordan retired in 93? Not really, although some argue it, the majority said Jordan was better. People in 1993 knew that team matter. People were already calling Jordan possibly the best ever in 1993. So, why should we believe Kobe is somehow the better player or winner when Jordan did more legendary things than him when he had a team, especially since people always say Shaq was the man on the Lakers?

Other Legends:

Usually centers have more impact than wingplayers. People like Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and Russell. Most of them had impact in ways that Kobe didn't achieve. Bird also turned a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year, and won a championship in his second year. Magic was with Kareem on his championship run, but also did something legendary in his rookie year. He helped the Lakers when Kareem turned super old.

Kobe is own player and help out his team in his own way, but those guys were legends. Kobe could be a great longitude type player, so we'll see.


And how is that any better than being the centerpiece for a team that rebuilt from the bottom up?


Its not. What Kobe did with his second championship squad, is prove that he never needed Shaq to lead his team to a title.

Its comical how people slight Kobe for trying to make his game like Jordans, but then slight him even more for not having the same exact career.

[tommyhtc]

Funny, all the talk about Kobe supposedly being just some dispensable side-kick that rode Shaq's coattails to 3 rings, and could have eaisly been replaced by any other All-Star swingman/combo guard in the league back then......

However when Shaq was quietly asking for himself or Bryant to be traded during the 2001 season, the Lakers front office told O'Neal that it would be him that would be gone before Kobe.
source?

[Bigsmoke]

Lebron had Mo Williams and Big Z :bowdown:

[AlphaWolf24]

You're right it was a different era. But compare their eFG. The league now and the league back then had basically the same eFG. The pacing was different and the shot selection was different as well, which you can see by the FG%. There were different teams and different situations. You can argue that the teams in the 80s were legendary because they were mostly all stacked. You would get fooled by their record and say that they suck, but it's not that the teams suck, it's that there's a lot of competition. More competition means more losing.

I'll address the nba finals issue below.




The winning part has a lot to deal with many details that we would have this long debate about, ok? So, I'm going to toss in my 2 cents of why Kobe winning is different than Jordan winning, and go back to why you can say that Kobe is not as credited as other legends.


Jordan:
The main reason why Jordan wasn't winning two reasons: competition and team. Kobe had Shaq, who was the best center and best player of the league during those 3 championships. Jordan did not have a player on that caliber. Kobe situation was VERY similar to Magic. Magic had Kareem, who was not only the best center, but the best player in the early 80s.

People criticize Jordan for not winning like Bird or Magic back then too. But in 1993, they compared him to other greats on their all-stars. Jordan also had significantly less all-stars (former and current at the time) than Magic and Bird. This would apply to Kobe as well. Especially when you have to argue about who is the man on the team with Shaq during the first 3 championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGHhahbgf0#t=02m40s

Now Magic also been more accomplish than anybody except for possibly Russell. In his rookie year till the time he first retired, an 11 year span, Magic been in 9 finals, won 5 championships, three time MVP, three time Finals MVP, ten time all-star (I think), and ten All-NBA First and second team.

Was he better than Jordan when Jordan retired in 93? Not really, although some argue it, the majority said Jordan was better. People in 1993 knew that team matter. People were already calling Jordan possibly the best ever in 1993. So, why should we believe Kobe is somehow the better player or winner when Jordan did more legendary things than him when he had a team, especially since people always say Shaq was the man on the Lakers?

Other Legends:

Usually centers have more impact than wingplayers. People like Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and Russell. Most of them had impact in ways that Kobe didn't achieve. Bird also turned a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year, and won a championship in his second year. Magic was with Kareem on his championship run, but also did something legendary in his rookie year. He helped the Lakers when Kareem turned super old.

Kobe is own player and help out his team in his own way, but those guys were legends. Kobe could be a great longitude type player, so we'll see.


The only year Shaq was better then Kobe was 00'n(even though in 2000 he was a 1st team all defense...witch Shaq never made)....Kobe was the best player in the NBA in 2001...Shaq , Phil and a 3 page ESPN article also echoed this statement.

Now to this >"The main reason why Jordan wasn't winning two reasons: competition and team."

Yes...you are right..against the great teams of the 80's...Jordan simply could not win.It wasn't until he was surrounded by great players (who were allstars and Champions without him)and the 80's teams dismantled , that he could finally win.

and now you and others here are saying it was because he didn't have good teammates to beat those teams.....so I ask again...

Why do you slight Kobe for winning with good teamates , when you yourself just said MJ could'nt win without good teammates??...see what I'm saying..it makes "0" sense...???:confusedshrug:

I think your basis is thinking that Jordan somehow carried a group of losers to Titles...but that is 100% false.

Jordan retired in 1993 and the 1994 Bull's only slipped 2 games winning 55 and making it to the 2nd round losing to the ECChampions in 7 games.

Pippen , Grant and Armstrong were allstars that year and shot a Higher FG% while taking more shots Without MJ.

also the "winning without a Big man" is totally Hype.

1991 Lakers had Divac....
1992 Trail Blazers had Duckworth
1993 Suns had West and Tisdale
1996 Sonics had Kemp
1997 - 98' Jazz had Ostertag

Bull's had Jordan , Pippen(allstar) , Grant(allstar) Cartwright(allstar), Rodman (allstar and greatest defensive player and rebounder of his generation,Kukoc (greatest Euro player of his generation) and great perimeter shooting.....

who needed a Big Man with those teamates:confusedshrug:

Like I said earlier.....Kobe and MJ are very similar players...

IMO Kobe at 32 has had a better overall career then MJ at 32...we will see how much more Kobe can win after 32 years old....Jordan won 3 titles after 32....if Kobe can match that he will have ......

roughly 8 NBA Finals....4FMVP's to go along with his other accolades and top 1 -2 - 3 scorer in NBA History.

To me that is impacting the game in the most important area ever...No One could say otherwise

[ShaqAttack3234]

3peat Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe- 25-6
3peat Lakers with Kobe and without Shaq- 13-12

And for those that don't know, there's just 1 spot on each of the all-defensive teams for centers, while there's 2 spots for guards. Not to mention that the best defensive centers typically make a bigger impact defensively than the best defensive guards.

Shaq>Kobe
Shaq's defensive impact>Kobe's defensive impact

[AlphaWolf24]

3peat Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe- 25-6
3peat Lakers with Kobe and without Shaq- 13-12

And for those that don't know, there's just 1 spot on each of the all-defensive teams for centers, while there's 2 spots for guards. Not to mention that the best defensive centers typically make a bigger impact defensively than the best defensive guards.

Shaq>Kobe
Shaq's defensive impact>Kobe's defensive impact



Shaq without Kobe = Five 50+ win team records with only 1 Title

Kobe (as a starter)with Shaq =Five 50+ win teams and 4 NBA Finals 3 titles

Kobe without Shaq = Three 50+ win teams with 3 NBA Finals and 2 Titles


Kobe proven through history >Shaq

Kobe 9X First team alldefense> Shaq never made the first team all defense

Kobe without Shaq>Shaq without Kobe

Kobe = best player in the NBA since 01'
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2173000/AlphaWolf-2173769_596_800.jpg

[623baller]

"so he isn't all that great even if he has 5 rings".



Ok,


so what players should Kobe win a championship to get proper credit?

Kwamae Brown LOL

[Round Mound]

Kobe has been very lucky during his career

He got to play with Prime and Peek Shaq: best offensive center ever: among other stacked very good players and som ex All Stars.

Now he has a BIG 3 in his Team with the Modern McHale version in Pau Gasol (except this can pass and create like very few Cs or CFs), Bynum: who is a legit rebounder, a presence and shot blocker per minute and the Best Sixman in the NBA in Odom: All Around Game

Very lucky: never lead the league in PER, EFF, Plus Minus or Diferential Shot Making/Shot Missing

Top 20 Player not more than Top 15

Most Overrated Player just below Russell.

[RazorBaLade]

Kobe has been very lucky during his career

He got to play with Prime and Peek Shaq: best offensive center ever.

Now he has a BIG 3 in his Team with the Modern McHale version in Pau Gasol /(except this can pass and create like very few Cs or CFs), Bynum who is a legit rebounder and shot blocker per minute and the Best Sixman in the NBA in Odom: All Around Game

Veru lucky: never lead the league in PER, EFF, Plus Minus or Diferential Shot Making/Shot Missing

Top 20 Player not more than Top 15.

back to the asylum, you

[Bigsmoke]

Very lucky: never lead the league in PER, EFF, Plus Minus or Diferential Shot Making/Shot Missing

.

lol who gives a shit!

[Disaprine]

:hammerhead:
:lol

[pauk]

there is a difference between:

A - Kobe having Shaq

&

B - Kobe getting rings from Shaq

all players need somebody.... kobe gets credit.... but not for the first 3 rings.... at least not the kindof credit he gets playing with Gasol....

for shaq kobe was first a benchwarmer, then a 6th man, then a sidekick....
for gasol kobe was the man of that team....

[AlphaWolf24]

there is a difference between:

A - Kobe having Shaq

&

B - Kobe getting rings from Shaq

all players need somebody.... kobe gets credit.... but not for the first 3 rings.... at least not the kindof credit he gets playing with Gasol....

for shaq kobe was first a benchwarmer, then a 6th man, then a sidekick....
for gasol kobe was the man of that team....


01' Playoff's Kobe = 29PPG 6reb 5ast
06' Playoffs Wade = 28PPG 5reb 5ast

Kobe was the first option in the 4th quarters and best allaround player in the NBA since 01


Wade was a sidekick too then right:confusedshrug:

[Micku]

The only year Shaq was better then Kobe was 00'n(even though in 2000 he was a 1st team all defense...witch Shaq never made)....Kobe was the best player in the NBA in 2001...Shaq , Phil and a 3 page ESPN article also echoed this statement.


If kobe was the best player, then he would have had more votes of MVP than Shaq, who was on the same team and he would would have won Finals MVP. Kobe was ninth in MVP that season, and Shaq was third. There were tons press and drama of the situation:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/02/19/spt_daugherty_lakers.html "Can't decide who's the man?"

But I don't want to discuss that because that will also lead to long debates. Other people will probably argue with that.





Yes...you are right..against the great teams of the 80's...Jordan simply could not win.It wasn't until he was surrounded by great players (who were allstars and Champions without him)and the 80's teams dismantled , that he could finally win.

and now you and others here are saying it was because he didn't have good teammates to beat those teams.....so I ask again...

Why do you slight Kobe for winning with good teamates , when you yourself just said MJ could'nt win without good teammates??...see what I'm saying..it makes "0" sense...???:confusedshrug:

I think your basis is thinking that Jordan somehow carried a group of losers to Titles...but that is 100% false.

Jordan retired in 1993 and the 1994 Bull's only slipped 2 games winning 55 and making it to the 2nd round losing to the ECChampions in 7 games.

Pippen , Grant and Armstrong were allstars that year and shot a Higher FG% while taking more shots Without MJ.

also the "winning without a Big man" is totally Hype.

1991 Lakers had Divac....
1992 Trail Blazers had Duckworth
1993 Suns had West and Tisdale
1996 Sonics had Kemp
1997 - 98' Jazz had Ostertag

Bull's had Jordan , Pippen(allstar) , Grant(allstar) Cartwright(allstar), Rodman (allstar and greatest defensive player and rebounder of his generation,Kukoc (greatest Euro player of his generation) and great perimeter shooting.....

who needed a Big Man with those teamates:confusedshrug:

Like I said earlier.....Kobe and MJ are very similar players...

IMO Kobe at 32 has had a better overall career then MJ at 32...we will see how much more Kobe can win after 32 years old....Jordan won 3 titles after 32....if Kobe can match that he will have ......

roughly 8 NBA Finals....4FMVP's to go along with his other accolades and top 1 -2 - 3 scorer in NBA History.

To me that is impacting the game in the most important area ever...No One could say otherwise

I don't criticize Kobe's teammates or championships he won, unless you are comparing the role he had in comparison to other greats roles.

But the thing is, Jordan was already consider to be possibly the GOAT in 93, in his ninth season, when he was 29/30 years old. Kobe wasn't consider to be a top 10 player until he won his fourth title, at the age of 31 and he was in his 13th year in the NBA while Jordan was in his ninth year when he was arguably consider the GOAT. Obviously people thought that Jordan first title run was as arguably as equally impressive in comparison to Magic or Bird?

You never hear that Kobe was arguably GOAT at the end of his first 3 peat. And you only started to hear that Kobe was in the top 10 in his fourth title, he wasn't even consider the best Laker. When he won his fifth title, in his 14th season, he was arguably the best Laker ever and it's probably difficult to see where he belongs in the top 10 while Jordan was consider to be possibly the GOAT player after his 3rd title. That's a big difference. Plus, Kobe at 32 was in the league for 15 years while Jordan at 32 was in the league for 10 and half years. Jordan in a shorter time, made a bigger impact and possibly had more accomplishments than Kobe. Jordan at age 32 not only won more scoring titles, but more MVPs, FMVPs, DPOY, set more records, and just played better overall than Kobe did at the age of 32.

So why does Kobe have a better career than Jordan at the age of 32 when Jordan not only played less seasons than Kobe, but already consider to be arguably the GOAT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGHhahbgf0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/24/entertainment/la-et-0824-jordan-espn-20100824


In the fall of 1993, Michael Jordan — often regarded as the greatest player ever to shoot a basketball


And this was before the age of 31, the age that Kobe won his fourth title, in his 13th season/year and consider to be a top 10. While Jordan was already arguably the GOAT before the age of 31, in his 9th season/year.

[Scientist]

He has credit but you can't really compare him to others based soley on his championship count BECAUSE those first three he wasn't really that center piece.

Shaq was the guy.

So when comparing to... say MJ, who was the guy each time, it is tough to use just the numbers.

Not to take away from the fact that he won 5 championships as a key player! But yes, there is a bit of a difference.

WTF are you talking about? Bulls minus Jordan >>>>> Lakers minus Kobe

[magnax1]

I have to say that people using Kobe playing with Pau as a second option against Kobe is probably the dumbest thing I can think of people regularly using against a player on here. Is there a worse second option that a player has won multiple with in the past 30 years?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have to say that people using Kobe playing with Pau as a second option against Kobe is probably the dumbest thing I can think of people regularly using against a player on here. Is there a worse second option that a player has won multiple with in the past 30 years?

Pau is better than Parker or Ginobili as well as Dumars.

[ginobli2311]

I have to say that people using Kobe playing with Pau as a second option against Kobe is probably the dumbest thing I can think of people regularly using against a player on here. Is there a worse second option that a player has won multiple with in the past 30 years?

I think you have to look at in terms of comparing the Lakers supporting cast to the league currently.....not throughout history.

Gasol is an all-nba player and a top 15 player in the game. No, he's not as good as Pippen or Mchale, but in comparison to the rest of the league....Gasol is a similar player.

Its also not just about Gasol.

The reason why Kobe's teams are brought up is because he can often play very poorly and his team can still win. This just wasn't the case for many of the all time greats we compare him to.

I think that is what a lot of people overlook. Nobody is saying that Kobe doesn't deserve a ton of credit. Where it gets tricky is when you compare Kobe to Hakeem or Bird.....and the 5 rings are all anyone ever talks about.

That is why its a tough discussion.

[Bandito]

Kobe should just die so the comparison can stop...

[magnax1]

Pau is better than Parker or Ginobili as well as Dumars.
For sure not Dumars, and Ginobili is arguable either way.

[ginobli2311]

Pau is better than Parker or Ginobili as well as Dumars.

Yep.

We also have to talk about what Gasol provides to the Lakers. Having a great big man like Gasol is of supreme importance in the current league. So Gasol might not be as good as some of the great 2nd guys in the past, but his impact might be as good or better.

In a league starved for solid bigs, the Lakers have Odom/Bynum/Gasol. That is an elite supporting cast if you compare that to the rest of the league.

The Lakers are not playing the 86 Celtics. They are competing against the other current teams. That distinction needs to be made.

[ginobli2311]

For sure not Dumars, and Ginobili is arguable either way.

No way.

For sure Dumars. Maybe 05 Manu has a case. That would be the only year though. Overall, Gasol over Manu for sure.

[Micku]

I have to say that people using Kobe playing with Pau as a second option against Kobe is probably the dumbest thing I can think of people regularly using against a player on here. Is there a worse second option that a player has won multiple with in the past 30 years?

Pau is also better than anybody not named Hakeem on the Rockets team 93-95 team. Pau is better than anybody on the 04 Pistons team. He could be better than anybody not named Isiah on the 80s Pistons. He is also better than people on the Spurs not named Duncan.

Gasol is a very good player. While he probably isn't the first choice of the best second player of all time, he is solid.

[AlphaWolf24]

No way.

For sure Dumars. Maybe 05 Manu has a case. That would be the only year though. Overall, Gasol over Manu for sure.


Joey D> Gasol

Ginoboli>Gasol

:lol @ anybody saying Gasol is a better player then Joey D....(I know you were'nt...you showed some brain skillz on that one...but Shaq attack????)

come on people

[Colby Brian]

I think you have to look at in terms of comparing the Lakers supporting cast to the league currently.....not throughout history.

Gasol is an all-nba player and a top 15 player in the game. No, he's not as good as Pippen or Mchale, but in comparison to the rest of the league....Gasol is a similar player.

Its also not just about Gasol.

The reason why Kobe's teams are brought up is because he can often play very poorly and his team can still win. This just wasn't the case for many of the all time greats we compare him to.

I think that is what a lot of people overlook. Nobody is saying that Kobe doesn't deserve a ton of credit. Where it gets tricky is when you compare Kobe to Hakeem or Bird.....and the 5 rings are all anyone ever talks about.

That is why its a tough discussion.

jordan played poorly in 2 games of the 1996 finals and still won
5/19 shooting and 6/19 shooting games
27.3 ppg on 41.5 fg%

[magnax1]

Gasol is an all-nba player and a top 15 player in the game. No, he's not as good as Pippen or Mchale, but in comparison to the rest of the league....Gasol is a similar player.
Well McHale and Pippen were both 5-10 in the league at one point, and I'd never rank Pau higher then 15.


Its also not just about Gasol.

The reason why Kobe's teams are brought up is because he can often play very poorly and his team can still win. This just wasn't the case for many of the all time greats we compare him to.
That's just not true. Jordan played a poor game scoring wise in the last game of the 96 finals, and while I can't remember specific instances I do remember that Bird scored only 15 points per game in one of his nba Finals.


I think that is what a lot of people overlook. Nobody is saying that Kobe doesn't deserve a ton of credit. Where it gets tricky is when you compare Kobe to Hakeem or Bird.....and the 5 rings are all anyone ever talks about.
I agree, it's obnoxious when people just point to the rings, though it's rare that anyone but Kobe fans do that. However, it also annoys me when people point to Kobe's team, when really it's quite an over rated team because of the way Kobe makes some of his team mates look better then they are to me.

[ShaqAttack3234]

For sure not Dumars, and Ginobili is arguable either way.

No, Gasol is better than either of them. His passing ability, length, post skills, rebounding, basketball IQ and ability to play either PF or C at an elite level make his impact on the game greater.

[magnax1]

Pau is also better than anybody not named Hakeem on the Rockets team 93-95 team. Pau is better than anybody on the 04 Pistons team. He could be better than anybody not named Isiah on the 80s Pistons. He is also better than people on the Spurs not named Duncan.

Gasol is a very good player. While he probably isn't the first choice of the best second player of all time, he is solid.
He's solid, but people exaggerate. And he's not better then Drexler on the Rockets.

[magnax1]

No, Gasol is better than either of them. His passing ability, length, post skills, rebounding, basketball IQ and ability to play either PF or C at an elite level make his impact on the game greater.
No, he just has absolutely no argument over Dumars. Dumars was the best perimeter defender in the league, an efficient 20 ppg, a good passer, and was basically just as good as Isiah at that point. And I'd take Ginobili in 07 or 08 over any Gasol, and the rest is pretty even.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Lakers fan: Kobe is a great player and has had a great career. He's potentially a top 10-12 player.

Jordan fan: He's not better than Jordan. Stop saying he's better than Jordan. Jordan has superior stats and Kobe plays with 3 7 footers; I know Lamar Odom technically isn't a 7 footer but he's basically one.

Lakers fan: What are you talking about? No one said Kobe's better than Jordan.

Jordan fan: Troll! Everyone says Kobe's better than Jordan.

A moron enters the thread: Kobe is not better than Jordan. Kobe is not clutch. Dirk is better than Kobe. Nash is better than Kobe. I am better than Kobe. Fact.

A Kobe troll enters the thread: Kobe is better than Jordan. You suck.

---

Rinse and repeat.

That's basically ISH.:facepalm
You pretty much categorized the whole ISH pretty well!:applause:

[ginobli2311]

jordan played poorly in 2 games of the 1996 finals and still won
5/19 shooting and 6/19 shooting games
27.3 ppg on 41.5 fg%

do you not see my point.

that is jordan's worst finals. that is better than kobe's career finals average.

[Micku]

He's solid, but people exaggerate. And he's not better then Drexler on the Rockets.

You're probably right on that, but it isn't out of the water or anything.

Gasol is a guy who can give you 18/19 ppg on above 53%+ shooting along with ten rebounds. He is very good. At one point, Gasol average 18.9 ppg with .567% shooting and with 9.6 rebounds.

[Colby Brian]

do you not see my point.

that is jordan's worst finals. that is better than kobe's career finals average.

but my point is both had good teammates to win even tho some games their leader didnt play that well

[magnax1]

You're probably right on that, but it isn't out of the water or anything.

Gasol is a guy who can give you 18/19 ppg on above 53%+ shooting along with ten rebounds. He is very good. At one point, Gasol average 18.9 ppg with .567% shooting and with 9.6 rebounds.
Yeah, I'm not saying he's bad, he's been in the 15-20 range for me for about 5 years, but people say stuff like he's massively improved since he's gone too the lakers because they under rated him before hand. He's the same player, and he's looks a little better and gets a bit better stats because he isn't the central focus and only 20 ppg scorer on the team. If he was without Kobe I have no doubt in my mind that he'd still be a poor rebounder, and less efficient scorer like he used to be. That's not an insult, but it's just annoying to me when people say he's improved since he's gotten to the Lakers when he's doing the exact same thing.

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, he just has absolutely no argument over Dumars. Dumars was the best perimeter defender in the league, an efficient 20 ppg, a good passer, and was basically just as good as Isiah at that point. And I'd take Ginobili in 07 or 08 over any Gasol, and the rest is pretty even.

Dumars was not as good of a defender as Jordan in terms of overall defense.

And :oldlol: at Dumars being as good as Pau.


He's solid, but people exaggerate. And he's not better then Drexler on the Rockets.

Clyde was great on the '95 Rockets, so I won't argue there, but if we're talking single season championship first options, I'd take Pau over plenty of them in the past 20 or so years.

[AlphaWolf24]

Pau is also better than anybody not named Hakeem on the Rockets team 93-95 team. Pau is better than anybody on the 04 Pistons team. He could be better than anybody not named Isiah on the 80s Pistons. He is also better than people on the Spurs not named Duncan.

Gasol is a very good player. While he probably isn't the first choice of the best second player of all time, he is solid.


ages 21 - 30 (Pau 's current age)

Joey D = 17PPG 5ast 3reb , 4X All defense first team/4X allstar
Gasol = 18PPG 9reb 3ast ,4X allstar


Joey D's defense was spectacular at times to go along with dropping 17 - 20PPG during the pistons dynasty (89 finals MVP)

I don't think Gasol was no where near the defensive impact Joey D had...and that's what wins.

[Micku]

But Gasol being a second option isn't really bad or anything. But which team had the better second option when the Lakers won their last time championship?

I can't think of any atm, there might be some, but I can't think of any right now.

Point is, the Lakers have a great team. They are very balance almost at every position. I don't criticize Kobe legacy for that because all of other great teams were very stacked. But if you are comparing him to other greats and where he stand among the greats, then you have to take in consideration of different roles, how good is Kobe indivdual play, a comparison of impacts, and a bunch of other stuff.

[ginobli2311]

but my point is both had good teammates to win even tho some games their leader didnt play that well

of course. its just been true more often with kobe than other players.

nobody would be talking about help if kobe's level of play was better in the finals for his career.

just the way it goes. if you want to tout your 5 rings, how you play matters. just the way it is.

and this only comes up when comparing kobe to some of the best players of all time. its not like kobe vs kg comes up and we start saying stuff about help for their respective titles.

or....when wade/lebron vs kobe comes up. its a fair point to bring up team strength. all that most people want is for things to be put in proper context.

kobe has been blessed with great teams throughout his career. just a fact. other great players would be lucky to play with half as much help as often as kobe did.

think about his career:

8 years with prime/peak shaq. teams that were winning close to 60 games with kobe as a bench warmer. then this is now year 4 of having the best or 2nd best supporting cast in the league. kobe has capitalized on these circumstances and deserves a lot of credit. its why he's pretty much a top 12 player at worst even on "haters" lists.

this will be year 12 of his career in which the team around him was easily good enough to win a title. most players are lucky to have 3 years like that for their entire careers.

[Nevaeh]

Are you that insecure you have to keep making topics about Kobe and where he's placed in history?

Almost every knowledgeable bball head realizes he's a top 10 player of all-time, period.

At least for now. If Lebron manages to grab a few rings late in his career like MJ did, he might just bump Kobe out of that slot considering he's been a team leader right out high school, has better efficiency as well as 2 regular season MVPs under his belt already.

[magnax1]

Dumars was not as good of a defender as Jordan in terms of overall defense.

And :oldlol: at Dumars being as good as Pau.



Clyde was great on the '95 Rockets, so I won't argue there, but if we're talking single season championship first options, I'd take Pau over plenty of them in the past 20 or so years.
You're right about Jordan, though I'm not sure that he was as good as Dumars in 89, he really didn't play as fundamentally sound of defense and gambled much more in the late 80's and early 90's then when he was winning championships.
However, there just isn't a logical argument for Pau over Dumars. None what so ever. Pau=Dumars-defense/grit/basically anything intangible

[AlphaWolf24]

At least for now. If Lebron manages to grab a few rings late in his career like MJ did, he might just bump Kobe out of that slot considering he's been a team leader right out high school, has better efficiency as well as 2 regular season MVPs under his belt already.


Heck Naw....Competitive hunger and work ethic.....in the end...It's gonna be

Kobe , Russell , Bird , Magic and MJ looked upon as the most competitive players ever.....to go along with the games winningest elite stars.

Lebron bailed on a Back 2 Back 60+ win team that had a great shot to win multiple titles to go Ring Chase in his prime on Wade's team...


he belongs in the TMAC , Vince Carter , Wilkins , Barkley group....

[magnax1]

of course. its just been true more often with kobe than other players.

nobody would be talking about help if kobe's level of play was better in the finals for his career.

just the way it goes. if you want to tout your 5 rings, how you play matters. just the way it is.

and this only comes up when comparing kobe to some of the best players of all time. its not like kobe vs kg comes up and we start saying stuff about help for their respective titles.

or....when wade/lebron vs kobe comes up. its a fair point to bring up team strength. all that most people want is for things to be put in proper context.

kobe has been blessed with great teams throughout his career. just a fact. other great players would be lucky to play with half as much help as often as kobe did.

think about his career:

8 years with prime/peak shaq. teams that were winning close to 60 games with kobe as a bench warmer. then this is now year 4 of having the best or 2nd best supporting cast in the league. kobe has capitalized on these circumstances and deserves a lot of credit. its why he's pretty much a top 12 player at worst even on "haters" lists.

this will be year 12 of his career in which the team around him was easily good enough to win a title. most players are lucky to have 3 years like that for their entire careers.
Can't you say that about Russell, Magic, and to a lesser extent Shaq and Bird? Probably some other guys too, but there are a lot of lucky and unlucky players through history that probably would be lower in the average guys team achievement based list like Kobe.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Kobe is a great player but couldn't beat the Sun's without 7 footers.

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobe is a great player but couldn't beat the Sun's without 7 footers.


Hey at least he won more then 1 playoff game without another great player next to him..:confusedshrug:

[ginobli2311]

Can't you say that about Russell, Magic, and to a lesser extent Shaq and Bird? Probably some other guys too, but there are a lot of lucky and unlucky players through history that probably would be lower in the average guys team achievement based list like Kobe.

absolutely.

but rings usually don't come up in those comparisons.

you see? its not like you would argue that kobe is better than shaq on rings. or that havlicek is better than kobe based on rings.

but rings come up very often when discussing kobe vs lebron. kobe vs hakeem.

stuff like that. its all about how you use the team success. which is why i don't count rings nearly as much as most do. its a team accomplishment.

too often the championship is swayed by the play of a role player anyway. do the celtics win in 08 if PJ Brown misses all those shots? probably not. How many Lakers titles were won/lost on the play of fisher and horry?

I just think its an extremely complex issue that is over simplified by ring counting.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Hey at least he won more then 1 playoff game without another great player next to him..:confusedshrug:
Nash and Marion> Kobe and Odom?

[magnax1]

absolutely.

but rings usually don't come up in those comparisons.

you see? its not like you would argue that kobe is better than shaq on rings. or that havlicek is better than kobe based on rings.

but rings come up very often when discussing kobe vs lebron. kobe vs hakeem.

stuff like that. its all about how you use the team success. which is why i don't count rings nearly as much as most do. its a team accomplishment.

too often the championship is swayed by the play of a role player anyway. do the celtics win in 08 if PJ Brown misses all those shots? probably not. How many Lakers titles were won/lost on the play of fisher and horry?

I just think its an extremely complex issue that is over simplified by ring counting.
I completely agree, I hate how much people use team success to rate an individual player. I really don't care how much Kobe won compared to Lebron and Hakeem. I'd rather have Hakeem because he's a better player, and I'd rather have Kobe then Lebon because he's better.

[ginobli2311]

Hey at least he won more then 1 playoff game without another great player next to him..:confusedshrug:

ugh.

so wrong.

the bulls made the conference finals with pippen averaging 13 and 7 on 46% shooting. if that is considered a great player then i give up.

or how about when they upset the cavs? what great player did MJ have that year? pippen put up 10 points 5 boards in the playoffs. LOL

please take the time to look up the facts first please. thanks.

[Bandito]

Nash and Marion> Kobe and Odom?
More like Nash, Amare and Marion>Kobe and Odom.

[Micku]

Yeah, I'm not saying he's bad, he's been in the 15-20 range for me for about 5 years, but people say stuff like he's massively improved since he's gone too the lakers because they under rated him before hand. He's the same player, and he's looks a little better and gets a bit better stats because he isn't the central focus and only 20 ppg scorer on the team. If he was without Kobe I have no doubt in my mind that he'd still be a poor rebounder, and less efficient scorer like he used to be. That's not an insult, but it's just annoying to me when people say he's improved since he's gotten to the Lakers when he's doing the exact same thing.

Well, he was without Kobe a few seasons. Prior to the trade, Gasol averaged 20 ppg and 9.8 rebounds. His offense got better because of two reasons:

1. Kobe attracts the defensively attention. (like you said)

2. The triangle offense works great with Pau Gasol.

I don't know how will Gasol will be without Kobe now, but if I don't really see him dropping anything less than he was in Memphis without Kobe, which is what he is now sort'a. Gasol peaked when he was with the Lakers though.



Joey D's defense was spectacular at times to go along with dropping 17 - 20PPG during the pistons dynasty (89 finals MVP)

I don't think Gasol was no where near the defensive impact Joey D had...and that's what wins.


Yeah, you guys may be right. But the efficiently of Gasol with the offense and a big presence with be his advantage. I suppose it depends on type of team it is.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

More like Nash, Amare and Marion>Kobe and Odom.
Amar'e was injured the whole year. didn't play a game in the series.

[AlphaWolf24]

absolutely.

but rings usually don't come up in those comparisons.

you see? its not like you would argue that kobe is better than shaq on rings. or that havlicek is better than kobe based on rings.

but rings come up very often when discussing kobe vs lebron. kobe vs hakeem.

stuff like that. its all about how you use the team success. which is why i don't count rings nearly as much as most do. its a team accomplishment.

too often the championship is swayed by the play of a role player anyway. do the celtics win in 08 if PJ Brown misses all those shots? probably not. How many Lakers titles were won/lost on the play of fisher and horry?

I just think its an extremely complex issue that is over simplified by ring counting.

But when comparing superstars winning should Factor more....the gap of talent between teams in the NBA your imagining isn't as great as you think....

LeBron - Has had a supporting cast good enough to win the Eastern Conference the past five seasons....:confusedshrug:




teams are closely matched, as evidenced by the sheer number of games where the underdog wins and the astonishing lack if not complete absence of substantial favorites , the impact of the star player is too great to ignore.

1984 who played better Magic or Bird?

How about 1987?

Did Jordan or MVP Barkley have the superior series in 1993. Hakeem or Robinson in 1995, Shaq or Hakeem later that postseason. Ewing or Hakeem the previous post-season? Wilt or Russell in the '62 EDF, Wilt or Russell in the '67 EDF? Kareem or Dave Cowens in game seven of the '74 Finals?

How about in 1990, was it Drexler or Isiah that raised their play most?

Look at the Celtics/Sixers series from '80-'82 and how whoever won the individual battle between Doc and Bird won most of the games and all three series.

Luck is unquestionably a part of it, and everything in sports and to some great extent, life. Perhaps though as someone said long before me, luck is nothing more than probability taken personally.

[ginobli2311]

I completely agree, I hate how much people use team success to rate an individual player. I really don't care how much Kobe won compared to Lebron and Hakeem. I'd rather have Hakeem because he's a better player, and I'd rather have Kobe then Lebon because he's better.

yea, i think at some point unless a guy just repeatedly chokes in big moments and games, winning is extremely over-rated when ranking players.

i would take lebron over kobe because i think he's better, but i respect your opinion.

would definitely take hakeem over kobe like you would. thats my point. hakeem had like 4 chances to win a title in his entire career. and 1 of those years i'm counting they won but they had no business winning. so using rings is extremely unfair for that comparison.

but it will never change. its always going to be:

"how many rings does he have"

i just hate that view. like i said, if robert horry and derek fisher don't make huge plays consistently, shaq and kobe could each have only 2 rings right now realistically.

[Bandito]

ugh.

so wrong.

the bulls made the conference finals with pippen averaging 13 and 7 on 46% shooting. if that is considered a great player then i give up.

or how about when they upset the cavs? what great player did MJ have that year? pippen put up 10 points 5 boards in the playoffs. LOL

please take the time to look up the facts first please. thanks.
Dude the Bulls team was stacked. Your only seeing one part of the game. That team also had good Team D and they always had good players besides the big two. Plus having Kukoc (6'11'' 3 point shooter) and Rodman on the same team just make it a 72 win team.I am not saying Kobe>Jordan but you have to accept MJ didn't won those cchips alone. No one can. 1 vs. 5 is just impossible by any means.

[AlphaWolf24]

Nash and Marion> Kobe and Odom?


Terry Cummings,Paul Pressey> Jordan , Orlando Woolridge

:confusedshrug:

[ginobli2311]

But when comparing superstars winning should Factor more....the gap of talent between teams in the NBA your imagining isn't as great as you think....

LeBron - Has had a supporting cast good enough to win the Eastern Conference the past five seasons....:confusedshrug:




teams are closely matched, as evidenced by the sheer number of games where the underdog wins and the astonishing lack if not complete absence of substantial favorites , the impact of the star player is too great to ignore.

1984 who played better Magic or Bird?

How about 1987?

Did Jordan or MVP Barkley have the superior series in 1993. Hakeem or Robinson in 1995, Shaq or Hakeem later that postseason. Ewing or Hakeem the previous post-season? Wilt or Russell in the '62 EDF, Wilt or Russell in the '67 EDF? Kareem or Dave Cowens in game seven of the '74 Finals?

How about in 1990, was it Drexler or Isiah that raised their play most?

Look at the Celtics/Sixers series from '80-'82 and how whoever won the individual battle between Doc and Bird won most of the games and all three series.

Luck is unquestionably a part of it, and everything in sports and to some great extent, life. Perhaps though as someone said long before me, luck is nothing more than probability taken personally.

your problem is that you take it too far. the fact that you think Lebron has played with enough talent to win titles is absurd.

they were probably good enough to win in 09. thats the only year. and my point would simply be.....why did they lose? they lost because the role players played like crap. Lebron played about as good as possible in the orlando series. they lost because the role guys like fisher and horry for the lakers didn't step up.

so how far do you take it? do you say that KG should have won titles in minny? how come only a couple times in 30 years did teams not in the top 3 in terms of talent win the title?

seems to me that the best teams win titles almost always. like i said, only 3 stars in the last 31 years have won without an all-nba teammate. duncan/hakeem/jordan.

thats it. if it was so easy to win without that, it would have happened more often.

[magnax1]

yea, i think at some point unless a guy just repeatedly chokes in big moments and games, winning is extremely over-rated when ranking players.

i would take lebron over kobe because i think he's better, but i respect your opinion.

would definitely take hakeem over kobe like you would. thats my point. hakeem had like 4 chances to win a title in his entire career. and 1 of those years i'm counting they won but they had no business winning. so using rings is extremely unfair for that comparison.

but it will never change. its always going to be:

"how many rings does he have"

i just hate that view. like i said, if robert horry and derek fisher don't make huge plays consistently, shaq and kobe could each have only 2 rings right now realistically.
Well I didn't mean Kobe over Lebron this year, I meant Kobe and Lebron at their best.
But yeah, I completely agree, and Kobe and Magic probably get the biggest hike because of the teams they played with. No insult to them, they both are top 10, or at least I have Kobe at 11 or 12 behind Moses, but I wouldn't have a problem with him at 9 or 10.

[Colby Brian]

Dude the Bulls team was stacked. Your only seeing one part of the game. That team also had good Team D and they always had good players besides the big two. Plus having Kukoc (6'11'' 3 point shooter) and Rodman on the same team just make it a 72 win team.I am not saying Kobe>Jordan but you have to accept MJ didn't won those cchips alone. No one can. 1 vs. 5 is just impossible by any means.
:applause:

[ginobli2311]

Dude the Bulls team was stacked. Your only seeing one part of the game. That team also had good Team D and they always had good players besides the big two. Plus having Kukoc (6'11'' 3 point shooter) and Rodman on the same team just make it a 72 win team.I am not saying Kobe>Jordan but you have to accept MJ didn't won those cchips alone. No one can. 1 vs. 5 is just impossible by any means.

what?

kukoc and rodman weren't on the bulls in 88. what the hell are you talking about?

i was responding to the post that claimed jordan never won a playoff game or series without a great player. simply not true. pippen didn't become a great player until 1991 really. the bulls won a lot of playoff series before that happened actually.

[ginobli2311]

Well I didn't mean Kobe over Lebron this year, I meant Kobe and Lebron at their best.
But yeah, I completely agree, and Kobe and Magic probably get the biggest hike because of the teams they played with. No insult to them, they both are top 10, or at least I have Kobe at 11 or 12 behind Moses, but I wouldn't have a problem with him at 9 or 10.

yea. its just preference. i don't think kobe has every played the game at the level lebron did in 09. but thats just my preference.

[Ne 1]

ugh.



or how about when they upset the cavs? what great player did MJ have that year? pippen put up 10 points 5 boards in the playoffs. LOL

please take the time to look up the facts first please. thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M79eJyW_T0M first round, do or die game 5 - 1988 playoffs

This was Pippen's first start of his NBA career and he ended up with the best game of his rookie season. Cavs jumped out to an early lead, Pippen was a bit nervous at the first but then he started dominating. Bulls were trailing all game, and then with Jordan on the bench, Pippen took control and keyed a 10-1 run to give the Bulls their first lead of the game, a lead they would keep until the game ended. Not only did he score, he set up players, provided energy to a defeatist team and even this early in his career, changed the complexion of the game with his defense (as shown by some clips in video). Ended up with 24/6/5/5. Oakley was also huge with 20 rebounds.

Now Pippen didn't fully emerge until he started beasting in '90 playoffs and finally in '91 he became without question the best #2 guy in the league. He wasn't a legit second option in '88 - he was only a rookie - but when his team was on the brink of elimination, he took over, as he usually did throughout his career in big games, to save the Bulls from an embarrassing first round elimination (if they lose, Jordan would have had to receive his MVP award in a press conference ala Dirk and the Bulls knocked out the first round for the 4th straight year).

[ginobli2311]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M79eJyW_T0M first round, do or die game 5 - 1988 playoffs

This was Pippen's first start of his NBA career and he ended up with the best game of his rookie season. Cavs jumped out to an early lead, Pippen was a bit nervous at the first but then he started dominating. Bulls were trailing all game, and then with Jordan on the bench, Pippen took control and keyed a 10-1 run to give the Bulls their first lead of the game, a lead they would keep until the game ended. Not only did he score, he set up players, provided energy to a defeatist team and even this early in his career, changed the complexion of the game with his defense (as shown by some clips in video). Ended up with 24/6/5/5. Oakley was also huge with 20 rebounds.

Now Pippen didn't fully emerge until he started beasting in '90 playoffs and finally in '91 he became without question the best #2 guy in the league. He wasn't a legit second option in '88 - he was only a rookie - but when his team was on the brink of elimination, he took over, as he usually did throughout his career in big games, to save the Bulls from an embarrassing first round elimination (if they lose, Jordan would have had to receive his MVP award in a press conference ala Dirk and the Bulls knocked out the first round for the 4th straight year).

simple fact.

pippen was not a great player until 1990 at the earliest. therefore the assertion that jordan never won without a great player is false.

that assertion is much more true with kobe.

kobe has never won a playoff series without the help of a top 15 player in the nba on his team.

[magnax1]

yea. its just preference. i don't think kobe has every played the game at the level lebron did in 09. but thats just my preference.
I guess, though I don't really see a reason for Choosing Lebron over Kobe in 06 or when he was healthy in 07, but I'm not going to argue.

[the_wise_one]

Kobe needs to win championship without David Stern.

[AlphaWolf24]

your problem is that you take it too far. the fact that you think Lebron has played with enough talent to win titles is absurd.

they were probably good enough to win in 09. thats the only year. and my point would simply be.....why did they lose? they lost because the role players played like crap. Lebron played about as good as possible in the orlando series. they lost because the role guys like fisher and horry for the lakers didn't step up.

so how far do you take it? do you say that KG should have won titles in minny? how come only a couple times in 30 years did teams not in the top 3 in terms of talent win the title?

seems to me that the best teams win titles almost always. like i said, only 3 stars in the last 31 years have won without an all-nba teammate. duncan/hakeem/jordan.

thats it. if it was so easy to win without that, it would have happened more often.


No..I watch Basketball I take in what I see.....you over analyze and try to legitimize your favorite player Losing year after year...and say "winning is just Lucky"


Howard, Wade, LeBron have all had above average supporting casts for multiple seasons.

Kevin Durant's Thunder are now a legit contender just after his 21st birthday.

Duncan has been on a contender every year in his career, Shaq's team's were good enough to contend for titles for more than a decade straight in his prime. Kobe has had Championship caliber teams for his entire career save a few transition seasons.


"Your trying to say Kobe just had these Greater players that's why he wins.."
Was the 09' Lakers really so far superior then the 09' Magic or Spurs...was the 09' Cavs so undermaned vs the 09' Magic who they SWEPT in the regular season

To me this proves, or at least supports my point. Jordan , Kobe and Russell didn't have definitively better teammates than Barkley , Malone, Chamberlain , Duncan and Lebron etc.etc.. every year, yet they beat them every year, or damn close.

Now if I were to suggest that Dave Cowens is better than Karl Malone on the basis of Championships, yes that'd be flawed logic. They didn't play in the same era nor did they have the same role on their respective teams.


you are just sitting here trying to say winning is mostly Luck...or just having a stacked team..it's not....

many Superstars play on teams good enough to win Titles.....the ones who want it the most will find it.

it's not Luck son....

[ShaqAttack3234]

However, there just isn't a logical argument for Pau over Dumars. None what so ever. Pau=Dumars-defense/grit/basically anything intangible

No chance. Here's a recap, this should demonstrate Pau's impact.

2008
Lakers w/ Bynum- 24-11
Lakers w/ Gasol- 22-4(excluding a game he left after 3 minutes)
Lakers w/o Bynum or Gasol- 11-10

Yes, the Lakers had a good record before Pau got there, but that was with Bynum, he joined a Bynum-less Laker team(which was barely over .500) and they went 22-4 and made the finals.

The following season, he put up 19/10/4 on 57% shooting(62 TS%), LA won 65 games, won a title, averaged 18/11/3/2 on 58% shooting(62 TS%) in the playoffs and played very well vs Dwight Howard in the finals.

Last year, he averaged 18/11/3/2 on 54% shooting(59 TS%) and LA won another title with Pau averaging 20/11/4/2 on 54% shooting(60 TS%) in the playoffs. Pau killed Utah averaging 24/15/3/3 on 61% from the field and 87% from the line, plus he was IMO, the MVP of the OKC series.

And this year(which hasn't been as good as his last 2, IMO), he's putting up 19/10/4/2 on 52% shooting(58 TS%).

He gives you great production and he makes a huge impact in the win column, remember during last year's playoffs when a lot of people were calling him the best big man in the game? I don't agree with that, but he's near the top of the list. Sorry, but Dumars did not impact games on a night to night basis as much as Pau.

[Micku]

But when comparing superstars winning should Factor more....the gap of talent between teams in the NBA your imagining isn't as great as you think....


The gap between talent does matter, but you're right in saying that winning matters too. That's why Duncan is consider to be one of the best. But talent matters also because that's why we rate Wilt, Kareem, Magic and Bird so high. Who is better between Bird or Duncan? You can argue about the win totals, but you also have to consider the talent that they have. Who is better between Isiah Thomas or Hakeem? The same thing.

---

We also did the same thing with the whole Gasol vs Joe Dumar thing. Who is better.

[The Iron Fist]

No chance. Here's a recap, this should demonstrate Pau's impact.

2008
Lakers w/ Bynum- 24-11
Lakers w/ Gasol- 22-4(excluding a game he left after 3 minutes)
Lakers w/o Bynum or Gasol- 11-10

Yes, the Lakers had a good record before Pau got there, but that was with Bynum, he joined a Bynum-less Laker team(which was barely over .500) and they went 22-4 and made the finals.

The following season, he put up 19/10/4 on 57% shooting(62 TS%), LA won 65 games, won a title, averaged 18/11/3/2 on 58% shooting(62 TS%) in the playoffs and played very well vs Dwight Howard in the finals.

Last year, he averaged 18/11/3/2 on 54% shooting(59 TS%) and LA won another title with Pau averaging 20/11/4/2 on 54% shooting(60 TS%) in the playoffs. Pau killed Utah averaging 24/15/3/3 on 61% from the field and 87% from the line, plus he was IMO, the MVP of the OKC series.

And this year(which hasn't been as good as his last 2, IMO), he's putting up 19/10/4/2 on 52% shooting(58 TS%).

He gives you great production and he makes a huge impact in the win column, remember during last year's playoffs when a lot of people were calling him the best big man in the game? I don't agree with that, but he's near the top of the list. Sorry, but Dumars did not impact games on a night to night basis as much as Pau.


Are you just going to spout pointless stats, or can you actually answer the question as posed in the initial post?


Ok,


so what players should Kobe have to win a championship to get proper credit?

[AlphaWolf24]

No chance. Here's a recap, this should demonstrate Pau's impact.

2008
Lakers w/ Bynum- 24-11
Lakers w/ Gasol- 22-4(excluding a game he left after 3 minutes)
Lakers w/o Bynum or Gasol- 11-10

Yes, the Lakers had a good record before Pau got there, but that was with Bynum, he joined a Bynum-less Laker team(which was barely over .500) and they went 22-4 and made the finals.

The following season, he put up 19/10/4 on 57% shooting(62 TS%), LA won 65 games, won a title, averaged 18/11/3/2 on 58% shooting(62 TS%) in the playoffs and played very well vs Dwight Howard in the finals.

Last year, he averaged 18/11/3/2 on 54% shooting(59 TS%) and LA won another title with Pau averaging 20/11/4/2 on 54% shooting(60 TS%) in the playoffs. Pau killed Utah averaging 24/15/3/3 on 61% from the field and 87% from the line, plus he was IMO, the MVP of the OKC series.

And this year(which hasn't been as good as his last 2, IMO), he's putting up 19/10/4/2 on 52% shooting(58 TS%).

He gives you great production and he makes a huge impact in the win column, remember during last year's playoffs when a lot of people were calling him the best big man in the game? I don't agree with that, but he's near the top of the list. Sorry, but Dumars did not impact games on a night to night basis as much as Pau.

So even without Gasol the Lakers are a top 1- 2 team in the west?


great...Give Kobe a above average Big and BOOM Dynasty.

Shaq rollin around in his grave right now.

[magnax1]

No chance. Here's a recap, this should demonstrate Pau's impact.

2008
Lakers w/ Bynum- 24-11
Lakers w/ Gasol- 22-4(excluding a game he left after 3 minutes)
Lakers w/o Bynum or Gasol- 11-10

Yes, the Lakers had a good record before Pau got there, but that was with Bynum, he joined a Bynum-less Laker team(which was barely over .500) and they went 22-4 and made the finals.

The following season, he put up 19/10/4 on 57% shooting(62 TS%), LA won 65 games, won a title, averaged 18/11/3/2 on 58% shooting(62 TS%) in the playoffs and played very well vs Dwight Howard in the finals.

Last year, he averaged 18/11/3/2 on 54% shooting(59 TS%) and LA won another title with Pau averaging 20/11/4/2 on 54% shooting(60 TS%) in the playoffs. Pau killed Utah averaging 24/15/3/3 on 61% from the field and 87% from the line, plus he was IMO, the MVP of the OKC series.

And this year(which hasn't been as good as his last 2, IMO), he's putting up 19/10/4/2 on 52% shooting(58 TS%).

He gives you great production and he makes a huge impact in the win column, remember during last year's playoffs when a lot of people were calling him the best big man in the game? I don't agree with that, but he's near the top of the list. Sorry, but Dumars did not impact games on a night to night basis as much as Pau.
:lol
I don't want to look up a bunch of stats, but it's as simple as Dumars and Pau are equivalent on offense basically. Both are about 18 ppg on very good shooting, both are very good passers, but Dumars was one of the best perimeter defenders, and brought just about everything intangible that you'd want while Pau was a good rim protector, but poor defender otherwise, and brought pretty much nothing in terms of intangibles.

[Micku]

:lol
I don't want to look up a bunch of stats, but it's as simple as Dumars and Pau are equivalent on offense basically. Both are about 18 ppg on very good shooting, both are very good passers, but Dumars was one of the best perimeter defenders, and brought just about everything intangible that you'd want while Pau was a good rim protector, but poor defender otherwise, and brought pretty much nothing in terms of intangibles.

I wouldn't call Gasol a poor defender. He showed that he can defend, but he's not on the level of Bogut, Howard or anything like that. He's just solid.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Are you just going to spout pointless stats, or can you actually answer the question as posed in the initial post?


Ok,


so what players should Kobe have to win a championship to get proper credit?

I'm not taking anything way from Kobe, he's been the best player on the Lakers and I argued with those who had Pau as last year's finals MVP. I'm just giving Gasol credit. I have no doubt that he's made a bigger impact on a night to night basis than Dumars. I judge championships in large part due to performance and Kobe has been phenomenal the past 2 years('08 as well), historically great actually and I don't think he's had some ridiculously good cast either.

[magnax1]

I wouldn't call Gasol a poor defender. He showed that he can defend, but he's not on the level of Bogut, Howard or anything like that. He's just solid.
He's a good rim protector, poor team defender and very poor post defender. It's a lot less apparent with Bynum on the team, because he's really really good at coming over and cleaning up Pau's mistakes (and he played a massively under rated role in defending Howard in 09) but overall I'd say Pau has been a pretty average defender overall as a laker, a bit below average maybe.

[ginobli2311]

He's a good rim protector, poor team defender and very poor post defender. It's a lot less apparent with Bynum on the team, because he's really really good at coming over and cleaning up Pau's mistakes (and he played a massively under rated role in defending Howard in 09) but overall I'd say Pau has been a pretty average defender overall as a laker, a bit below average maybe.


i try and avoid talking gasol a lot because i'm a huge fan. i lived in memphis and saw every single game of his first few years. i truly think he's a great player and is pretty much a perfect team player.

i think you seriously under-rate gasol's impact defensively. he's a very good rim protector and defensive rebounder. paint/rim protection is arguably the most important aspect of defense....and rebounding is way up there as well.

in terms of overall defensive impact, Gasol is a huge positive. And no, its not just bynum. even when bynum hasn't played Gasol has been great. just like at gasol vs howard in 09 or gasol vs the celtics front line in the finals last year.

gasol, like dirk, gets less respect than he should because of the perceptions on euro players.

there just aren't many guys in the history of the game that are as complete of a player as gasol is. great passing, great off the ball movement, good range on jumpers, great footwork, catches and keeps the ball high on boards, good rebounder, good rim protector, good ft shooter.

his game is about as fundamentally sound as it gets out of a big man. even better, gasol is a true professional and has no problem not getting up a ton of shots.

as a 2nd option, i'm not sure there are many guys i'd want over gasol. probably pippen and mchale. thats about it. i don't count kareem/kobe as 2nd options.

[Micku]

He's a good rim protector, poor team defender and very poor post defender. It's a lot less apparent with Bynum on the team, because he's really really good at coming over and cleaning up Pau's mistakes (and he played a massively under rated role in defending Howard in 09) but overall I'd say Pau has been a pretty average defender overall as a laker, a bit below average maybe.

Gasol and Bynum switched on the Howard. Their length bother him. Gasol and Bynum did a very good job at protecting the paint last year in the NBA finals, and their team D is ok. It's more of their height and length that bother ppl. He's also a good def rebounded. He's not bad. He's no Garnett, Duncan, or anything. But he is a guy who can bother ppl.

[magnax1]

i try and avoid talking gasol a lot because i'm a huge fan. i lived in memphis and saw every single game of his first few years. i truly think he's a great player and is pretty much a perfect team player.

i think you seriously under-rate gasol's impact defensively. he's a very good rim protector and defensive rebounder. paint/rim protection is arguably the most important aspect of defense....and rebounding is way up there as well.

in terms of overall defensive impact, Gasol is a huge positive. And no, its not just bynum. even when bynum hasn't played Gasol has been great. just like at gasol vs howard in 09 or gasol vs the celtics front line in the finals last year.

gasol, like dirk, gets less respect than he should because of the perceptions on euro players.

there just aren't many guys in the history of the game that are as complete of a player as gasol is. great passing, great off the ball movement, good range on jumpers, great footwork, catches and keeps the ball high on boards, good rebounder, good rim protector, good ft shooter.

his game is about as fundamentally sound as it gets out of a big man. even better, gasol is a true professional and has no problem not getting up a ton of shots.

as a 2nd option, i'm not sure there are many guys i'd want over gasol. probably pippen and mchale. thats about it. i don't count kareem/kobe as 2nd options.
Rebounding just isn't part of defense. It impact offense just as much as it does defense, you can call it defense if you wan't but there's no more logical reason to call it defense then there is to call ball handling/turnovers.
On top of that he's a good rim protector, but he's not elite, and no where near it. He averages, what? Like 1.5 blocks a game, and he's not a guy who stops anybody before he really gets to the rim, he's just a reactionary rim protector. He also just can't defend the post at all, which has been blatantly obvious both times he played against KG in the finals.

[ginobli2311]

Rebounding just isn't part of defense. It impact offense just as much as it does defense, you can call it defense if you wan't but there's no more logical reason to call it defense then there is to call ball handling/turnovers.
On top of that he's a good rim protector, but he's not elite, and no where near it. He averages, what? Like 1.5 blocks a game, and he's not a guy who stops anybody before he really gets to the rim, he's just a reactionary rim protector. He also just can't defend the post at all, which has been blatantly obvious both times he played against KG in the finals.

securing the ball after a missed shot is absolutely part of defense. you don't get a defensive stop until you grab a rebound. just a fact. so you can't play good defense unless you rebound.

its not just about blocks. its about altering shots as well. gasol is very good at this.

nobody is calling gasol a defensive great. i'm saying his impact defensively is very positive on the whole.

[magnax1]

Gasol and Bynum switched on the Howard. Their length bother him. Gasol and Bynum did a very good job at protecting the paint last year in the NBA finals, and their team D is ok. It's more of their height and length that bother ppl. He's also a good def rebounded. He's not bad. He's no Garnett, Duncan, or anything. But he is a guy who can bother ppl.
Actually, that's exactly what Pau is. He's what a guy like Boozer would be if he was 7 foot tall on defense. Doesn't rotate well, doesn't make many smart defensive decisions, he's just tall and long.
And he's not a bad rebounder anymore. He's probably above average, though he always seems to throw out poor rebounding games when playing Duncan, Dwight, Dirk or one of the better bigmen.

[magnax1]

securing the ball after a missed shot is absolutely part of defense. you don't get a defensive stop until you grab a rebound. just a fact. so you can't play good defense unless you rebound.
Securing the ball after a missed shot is absolutely part of offense. You can't get a score until you get the rebound. just a fact. You can't play good offense unless you rebound.

its not just about blocks. its about altering shots as well. gasol is very good at this.

That's why I call it rim protection and not shot blocking.

nobody is calling gasol a defensive great. i'm saying his impact defensively is very positive on the whole
Coupled with another 7 footer, it's positive, but he's not a good defensive player. THey don't play that great of team defense but get away with it because they have 2 7+ foot shotblockers and Odom who is also really long and a pretty good shotblocker. Nobody is that great of a defender except maybe Bynum and Artest it's just the team as a whole with the pieces it has is much more then the sum of its parts.

[ginobli2311]

Securing the ball after a missed shot is absolutely part of offense. You can't get a score until you get the rebound. just a fact. You can't play good offense unless you rebound.

That's why I call it rim protection and not shot blocking.

Coupled with another 7 footer, it's positive, but he's not a good defensive player. THey don't play that great of team defense but get away with it because they have 2 7+ foot shotblockers and Odom who is also really long and a pretty good shotblocker. Nobody is that great of a defender except maybe Bynum and Artest it's just the team as a whole with the pieces it has is much more then the sum of its parts.

but you can score without rebounding. if the other team scores on you. which is about half the time when counting ft's. so no, its not the same thing.

you simply can't get a "stop" defensively without securing the rebound or forcing a turnover. so rebounding is absolutely part of defense. its called defensive rebounding for a reason.

LOL at trying to claim its just as big a part of offense. completely flawed logic.

[magnax1]

but you can score without rebounding. if the other team scores on you. which is about half the time when counting ft's. so no, its not the same thing.
It's still the same premise. When the ball is up for grabs, both on offense and defense you getting that ball will take a shot away from them and give it to you, making it affect offense and defense equally.
If both one team makes more shots that's part of offense/defense, not possession.

you simply can't get a "stop" defensively without securing the rebound or forcing a turnover. so rebounding is absolutely part of defense. its called defensive rebounding for a reason.

Rebounding is possession, it's really as simple as that. Because when you don't play the defense you get the ball back doesn't make rebounding any more part of defense, it just means when you don't play defense you have to work harder to setup your offense, or if you do play defense and don't rebound you don't setup you offense at all. Rebounding, and ball possession as a whole affects offense just as much as it does defense. If you want to chop off a part of that and call it defense, so be it, but it doesn't make sense.

[magnax1]

Basically what I'm saying is what you're saying is a moot point because it isn't even about rebounding. It's about defense/offense. Say two teams score at exactly 50% no turnovers, or threes or whatever else changes this scenario, but one team gets 40 rebounds and the other gets 30. So the 40 rebound team gets 10 more possessions on offense and the 30 team gets 10 less possessions on offense. It's equally affecting both sides of the floor. It's not about offense/defense it's a separate matter from both that affects both side equally.

[ginobli2311]

It's still the same premise. When the ball is up for grabs, both on offense and defense you getting that ball will take a shot away from them and give it to you, making it affect offense and defense equally.
If both one team makes more shots that's part of offense/defense, not possession.


Rebounding is possession, it's really as simple as that. Because when you don't play the defense you get the ball back doesn't make rebounding any more part of defense, it just means when you don't play defense you have to work harder to setup your offense, or if you do play defense and don't rebound you don't setup you offense at all. Rebounding, and ball possession as a whole affects offense just as much as it does defense. If you want to chop off a part of that and call it defense, so be it, but it doesn't make sense.

it does make sense. agree to disagree.

a defensive stop only occurs once you gain possession of the ball. this can be done by forcing a turnover or securing a rebound.

they go hand in hand.

offensive rebounding is absolutely part of offense....especially when discussing players. odom's or gasol's offensive rebounding is a huge part of their impact on offense.

we just see it in different ways.

[ginobli2311]

Basically what I'm saying is what you're saying is a moot point because it isn't even about rebounding. It's about defense/offense. Say two teams score at exactly 50% no turnovers, or threes or whatever else changes this scenario, but one team gets 40 rebounds and the other gets 30. So the 40 rebound team gets 10 more possessions on offense and the 30 team gets 10 less possessions on offense. It's equally affecting both sides of the floor. It's not about offense/defense it's a separate matter from both that affects both side equally.

but i could come up with a scenario in which gasol's defensive rebounding prevents the other team from getting 2nd chance points all game. often that is enough to determine the outcome of the game.

take the heat for example. often they give up a lot of offensive rebounds late in games. that is part of defense because they aren't stopping the other team. the team is getting multiple chances to score because of the poor defensive rebounding.

the defensive possession ends in a number of ways:

1. turnover
2. defensive rebound
3. made shot

being a great defensive rebounder limits the amount of chances the other team potentially has to score. what is defense? its preventing the other team from scoring. and securing defensive rebounds better than others prevents the opposing team from scoring on 2nd chance points.

[magnax1]

it does make sense. agree to disagree.

a defensive stop only occurs once you gain possession of the ball. this can be done by forcing a turnover or securing a rebound.

they go hand in hand.

offensive rebounding is absolutely part of offense....especially when discussing players. odom's or gasol's offensive rebounding is a huge part of their impact on offense.

we just see it in different ways.
But they're taking away from your offense when they gain possession of the ball and get an extra shot and you don't secure the rebound on defense. It's taking away from your offense, and defense, and adding to their offense and defense. To attribute that possession only to defense isn't really seeing it a different way, it just plain doesn't make sense.

[ginobli2311]

But they're taking away from your offense when they gain possession of the ball and get an extra shot and you don't secure the rebound on defense. It's taking away from your offense, and defense, and adding to their offense and defense. To attribute that possession only to defense isn't really seeing it a different way, it just plain doesn't make sense.

well. agree to disagree.

i've coached for over a decade and played in college and every single one of my coaches would preach that rebounding is part of defense. saying that:

"the defensive possession does not end until we have the ball"


its just semantics at this point. defensive rebounding is part of defense for me. just like offensive rebounding is part of offense for me. hence why they have their names.

[magnax1]

well. agree to disagree.

i've coached for over a decade and played in college and every single one of my coaches would preach that rebounding is part of defense. saying that:

"the defensive possession does not end until we have the ball"


its just semantics at this point. defensive rebounding is part of defense for me. just like offensive rebounding is part of offense for me. hence why they have their names.
I was always told that, but it just doesn't make logical sense. Not trying to be a dousche when I say that, but looking at it logically rebounding affects both sides of the floor equally, and is equally as important as either of them. And really that's the only reason I argue this, because looking at rebounding/possesion as part of defense/offense instead of an equal and separate category isn't a good way to judge a teams level of play.

[tpols]

securing the ball after a missed shot is absolutely part of defense. you don't get a defensive stop until you grab a rebound. just a fact. so you can't play good defense unless you rebound.

its not just about blocks. its about altering shots as well. gasol is very good at this.

nobody is calling gasol a defensive great. i'm saying his impact defensively is very positive on the whole.
Blocks are a great indicator of how many shots you're altering. Guys that block more shots almost always alter more shots than guys who don't block as many shots. They go hand in hand.

And of course Gasol's defensive impact is positive. Any 7 footer will have a positive defensive impact as long as he at least tries to play defense. But, Gasol is no better defensively than odom and he is worse than bynum.. he isn't a great defensive player.. The laker's great interior defense and reboundingcomes from the fact that they have 3 huge guys that are all solid defenders. Gasol isn't even the best defender of the group.

[ginobli2311]

I was always told that, but it just doesn't make logical sense. Not trying to be a dousche when I say that, but looking at it logically rebounding affects both sides of the floor equally, and is equally as important as either of them. And really that's the only reason I argue this, because looking at rebounding/possesion as part of defense/offense instead of an equal and separate category isn't a good way to judge a teams level of play.

and i understand that. its your opinion.

i, however, absolutely consider it a part of team and player defense to be a great defensive rebounder.

thats just me. that is why i keep saying agree to disagree. i'm watching the knicks game right now and they haven't secured any defensive rebounds late and are giving up points because of it. so that is impacting their ability to stop the magic from scoring. and that is what defense is....stopping the other team from scoring.

[ginobli2311]

Blocks are a great indicator of how many shots you're altering. Guys that block more shots almost always alter more shots than guys who don't block as many shots. They go hand in hand.

And of course Gasol's defensive impact is positive. Any 7 footer will have a positive defensive impact as long as he at least tries to play defense. But, Gasol is no better defensively than odom and he is worse than bynum.. he isn't a great defensive player.. The laker's great interior defense and reboundingcomes from the fact that they have 3 huge guys that are all solid defenders. Gasol isn't even the best defender of the group.

i agree with every single thing in this post.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Bynum is better at defending other big men. Gasol disrupts guards and small forwards from taking mid range shots. It's because of his length that makes him so hard to score on. Teams have to think of alternative ways of scoring when he is on the court. Like jacking 3's or praying for foul calls which is once and a blue moon when playing against LA.

[Soundwave]

I'm not really sure I'd buy the Bulls were stacked.

After Pippen, they were a fairly average team. Harper was a shadow of his former self by the time he got to Chicago.

[RecSpecs110]

Kobe has had the luxury of playing with those two big men. It's a totally legit argument to make. When your team runs pretty much the best offense, has all the necessary pieces and more to run it, AND has a plethora of skilled big men to rebound, play defense, get blocks, steals, etc.....how can you just ignore it?

It's really dumb when people say "Ohh, how many rings LeBron got?" Yeah, last time I checked, basketball is a team sport. Where was Kobe in 2005, 2006, and 2007? Exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz8vm8u_wCs&feature=feedu

And when Kobe does stuff like at 3:22, 4:34, 5:52 and 6:28 of this video (not passing it to WIDE OPEN teammates while taking retarded off balance hero shots, one after another), it really stymies the theory that he can continue winning with lesser talent by making his teammates better, because apparently, when the clock is ticking down, he's somehow allergic to passing the damn ball.

[dynasty1978]

I'm not really sure I'd buy the Bulls were stacked.

After Pippen, they were a fairly average team. Harper was a shadow of his former self by the time he got to Chicago.

You should buy it.

Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper were every bit as impactful (if not more) than the Lakers supporting cast, especially when you consider Bynum's limited playing time played during the title runs.