Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate?

[rule1223]

kobe, duncan, dirk... they must be the undisputed best player of the team

[LJJ]

Ben Wallace.

[rule1223]

Ben Wallace.
undisputed... the fact that chauncey won the finals mvp already shows that a strong argument can be made

[Scoooter]

Pau was better and more important than Kobe. I could see him sneaking into the Top 50. There, I have disputed another. Strike Kobe from you list, post haste!

[miles berg]

Hakeem, Nowitzki, & Duncan are the only one's that spring to mind.

[rule1223]

Pau was better and more important than Kobe. I could see him sneaking into the Top 50. There, I have disputed another. Strike Kobe from you list, post haste!
pau is an amazing player but not top 50, see if hes better than any of the players on the top 50 best players list, than consider how many who are not on the list that are better than him and you'll realize that he probly isnt. Pau better than kobe is just ridiculous, the argument is as strong as me saying pippen was better than jordan.

[Story Up]

Pau was better and more important than Kobe. I could see him sneaking into the Top 50. There, I have disputed another. Strike Kobe from you list, post haste!
This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

[LJJ]

undisputed... the fact that chauncey won the finals mvp already shows that a strong argument can be made

Not really, all it shows that Billups had a great series in the finals. But not even the GOAT was the best player on his team every night. It also shows that the league emphasizes offense over defense when handing out awards like these.

But I'm positive the vast majority of basketball followers would take Wallace's importance on those Pistons over Billups. Thus he should count.

[ForeverHeat]

pau is an amazing player but not top 50, see if hes better than any of the players on the top 50 best players list, than consider how many who are not on the list that are better than him and you'll realize that he probly isnt. Pau better than kobe is just ridiculous, the argument is as strong as me saying pippen was better than jordan.

He never said Pau was beeter in general, but that he played better in finals and was more important, which he certainly has been recently.

[guy]

kobe, duncan, dirk... they must be the undisputed best player of the team

Isn't Jason Kidd a top 50 player?

The whole winning with or without a top 50 player argument is kind of dumb. Alot of players win with players that are considered top 50 players but weren't playing at a top 50 of all-time level at the time. On the other hand, some players win with players that are not considered top 50 players but were playing at a top 50 all-time level at the time. You can argue that although Gasol, Pierce, and Dumars aren't considered top 50 players ever, they were playing that well when Kobe, KG, and Isiah won their titles. You can argue that although Dirk, Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Magic, Bird, and Kareem have always seem to have won titles playing with at least 1 other top 50 player, that top 50 player wasn't always playing at a top 50 level in each of those titles.

[jlip]

Look at a few of those 70's championship squads. I can't recall the entire rosters but Barry's Warriors, Walton's Blazers, and Dennis Johnson's Sonics come to mind.

[Dbrog]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

Christ...what is wrong with this board? :facepalm

[Story Up]

Christ...what is wrong with this board? :facepalm
Too many people try to discredit Kobe. Dirk in the finals had plenty of help from Marion, Terry, Barea and Kidd. Chandler was terrific, yet people act like Kobe was carried to titles.

[Rekindled]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

wtf are u smoking

[G.O.A.T]

Rick Barry (1975)
Isiah Thomas (1989 & 1990)
Tim Duncan (2005 & 2007)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Drik Nowitzki (2011)
Kevin Garnett (2008)
Bob Pettit (1958)
Dolph Schayes (1955)
Bill Walton (1977)
Wilt Chamberlain (1967...but I think Greer and Cunningham are top 50 or very very close)

[blablabla]

Rick Barry (1975)
Isiah Thomas (1989 & 1990)
Tim Duncan (2005 & 2007)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Drik Nowitzki (2011)
Kevin Garnett (2008)
Bob Pettit (1958)
Dolph Schayes (1955)
Bill Walton (1977)
Wilt Chamberlain (1967...but I think Greer and Cunningham are top 50 or very very close)
:wtf:

[b1imtf]

Are you guys really saying J-Kidd isn't top 50?

[millwad]

Rick Barry (1975)
Isiah Thomas (1989 & 1990)
Tim Duncan (2005 & 2007)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Drik Nowitzki (2011)
Kevin Garnett (2008)
Bob Pettit (1958)
Dolph Schayes (1955)
Bill Walton (1977)
Wilt Chamberlain (1967...but I think Greer and Cunningham are top 50 or very very close)

Are you for real? Both Greer and Cunningham are on the "50 greatest players in NBA history", Wilt has nothing at all to do on that list. And as if that wasn't enough he had a Chet Walker on his team averaging 19 points per game that season.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Are you for real? Both Greer and Cunningham are on the "50 greatest players in NBA history", Wilt has nothing at all to do on that list. And as if that wasn't enough he had a Chet Walker on his team averaging 19 points per game that season.

*Waits for Jlauber*


http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc185/Strikeninja95/popcorn_yes.gif

[caliman]

People really think Gasol is top 50 all time? My God, this forum is smoking some serious crack.

[boozehound]

to a ship? probably any of them located in a port town. Its really not that hard.


Oh, to a championship. Its called english and we speak it.

[rule1223]

to a ship? probably any of them located in a port town. Its really not that hard.


Oh, to a championship. Its called english and we speak it.
yo grammar nazi, everyone else seems to understand the point of the thread... oh ya if you used your brain maybe you'd realize that theres a character limit for titles so ya its not that hard, it impossible unless im a mod

[bdreason]

People really think Gasol is top 50 all time? My God, this forum is smoking some serious crack.


Take a look at the top 50 list. Nostalgia aside, Pau Gasol is superior to many of them... both more talented and a better resume.

[G.O.A.T]

:wtf:

Dumars and Rodman are not top 50 anymore.

Paul Pierce isn't nor is Ray Allen.

Pretty simple explanation.

[G.O.A.T]

Are you for real? Both Greer and Cunningham are on the "50 greatest players in NBA history", Wilt has nothing at all to do on that list. And as if that wasn't enough he had a Chet Walker on his team averaging 19 points per game that season.

The team was loaded sure, but I have Greer and Cunningham between 45-55 all-time.

Yes, they were on the 50 greatest, but that list came out 15 years ago. Being on that list then doesn't mean you are still top 50 all-time.

Chet Walker isn't even a top 100 lock.

Why do you insist on arguing over things that only a dick would argue over.

[millwad]

The team was loaded sure, but I have Greer and Cunningham between 45-55 all-time.

Yes, they were on the 50 greatest, but that list came out 15 years ago. Being on that list then doesn't mean you are still top 50 all-time.

Chet Walker isn't even a top 100 lock.

Why do you insist on arguing over things that only a dick would argue over.

Because the comment I replied to was written by a retard, a team who had 2 guys who's on the top 50 list and at least Greer is on every single top 50 list written by someone who knows basketball. Your comment was silly and especially since you yourself also have him at 45..

[Bring-Your-Js]

The team was loaded sure, but I have Greer and Cunningham between 45-55 all-time.

Yes, they were on the 50 greatest, but that list came out 15 years ago. Being on that list then doesn't mean you are still top 50 all-time.

Chet Walker isn't even a top 100 lock.

Why do you insist on arguing over things that only a dick would argue over.

Jlauber.

He got the whole forum hating Chamberlain.

[millwad]

Jlauber.

He got the whole forum hating Chamberlain.

I don't hate Wilt because of Jlauber, I don't even hate him but I know many dislike him after all Jlaubers spamming.

I just think he gets overrated, like in this case, the guy played with 2 guys who are listed in the 50 greatest players thingy and suddenly he became a candidat for the topic, "Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate?". I understand if someone can argue about Cunningham not actually deserving the spot but Hal Greer is a sure lock.

Or all the myths spread by Jlauber, the guy is was "world class volleyball player", he was world class when it came to track and field events, he could touch the top of the backboard easily, he slept with 20 000 women, he could bench like no one else, he broke someones foot when he dunked a ball on the guys foot so hard, he once dunked a basketball when two fully grown NBA players hang on his arms etc... Exaggerating a little is ok but come on..

[rmt]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

Now, who is being ridiculous? If you're using all-star as a measuring stick, Duncan won in 05 with a one time all-star (Manu) and in 07 with a two time all-star (Parker) and a one time all-star (Manu).

What's ridiculous is using all-star as a measuring stick when Kidd and Robinson were waaaaaaaaay past their all-star years. A truer measuring stick is all-nba honors (takes out the popularity element) in the championship year which would leave Barry ('75), Jordan ('91), Hakeem ('94), Duncan (99, 03, 05, 07) and Dirk ('11).

LOL, at Kobe winning with less than Duncan and Dirk - he's only got the best frontline in the NBA. Duncan had a 20 year old (2nd year) Parker, and SJax and Manu (rookie) playing in their first playoffs as his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Dumars and Rodman are not top 50 anymore.

Paul Pierce isn't nor is Ray Allen.

Pretty simple explanation.

When Pierce only just makes it to top 50 in Bill Simmons' book you know he can't really be close...

[clayton]

kobe
Nope.

[All Net]

Too many people try to discredit Kobe. Dirk in the finals had plenty of help from Marion, Terry, Barea and Kidd. Chandler was terrific, yet people act like Kobe was carried to titles.
Agenda takes over for many.

[crosso√er]

Now, who is being ridiculous? If you're using all-star as a measuring stick, Duncan won in 05 with a one time all-star (Manu) and in 07 with a two time all-star (Parker) and a one time all-star (Manu).

What's ridiculous is using all-star as a measuring stick when Kidd and Robinson were waaaaaaaaay past their all-star years. A truer measuring stick is all-nba honors (takes out the popularity element) in the championship year which would leave Barry ('75), Jordan ('91), Hakeem ('94), Duncan (99, 03, 05, 07) and Dirk ('11).

LOL, at Kobe winning with less than Duncan and Dirk - he's only got the best frontline in the NBA. Duncan had a 20 year old (2nd year) Parker, and SJax and Manu (rookie) playing in their first playoffs as his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.

Kobe has never won a championship with the best front-court, why do people keep insisting on saying that?

Bynum was crippled; Lamar & Pau alone does not constitute the best front-court. What has Pau achieved without Kobe, what has Odom achieved without Kobe? Kobe achieved a dynasty without both of them; but I can guess where that point is going right?

This forum is ridiculous towards Kobe. In 09' he played great in every series including the NBA finals. In 10'; he dominated yet again until LA faced Boston in a grueling seven game series. Despite him struggling scoring; he still didn't shoot much worse then Dirk. Difference being; Dirk is a big, and is expected to be more efficient then a volume scorer (playing shooting guard). Yet, when Dirk leads his team to a title; he's all the sudden a top three player (or to some) the best player in the league.

When Kobe wins back to back titles and leads his team to three straight final appearances; people try to overshadow that accomplishment by sugarcoating how great his teammates are. That's why I don't take this forum seriously. Every time I log on this forum, I see ten threads on the first page talking about Kobe. Basically every single one of them are agenda driven. If a fan creates a thread praising him; you have the same trolls coming in, accumulating 200+ replies basically belittling the guy every way possible.

The most intriguing observation is how Kobe & Dirk are treated. You have one guy, shooting 42%; getting a ton of contribution from his role players, and gets a ton of love. The other guy, struggled shooting (just like Dirk) but the table gets completely turned on him. Its these double standards that annoy the crap out of me.

As far as Kobe is concerned; he is the ONLY basketball player that have won back-to-back titles and led his team to three straight final appearances without having a top fifty player beside him.

No one ever mentions how terrible LA's back-court was during the run. Yeah Fish is a big game player and has made it count, but it's not like there's someone on those teams that could have relieved Kobe from ball-handling duties; setting up teammates or actually defend their man.

Basically Kobe won two titles with Gasol, Fisher, Ariza & Lamar (in 09') and Gasol, Artest, Lamar & injured Bynum.

Is it really that much more help then what Dirk & Duncan had during their title runs? Don't just look at the name on the jersey, actually look at how much their teammates contributed to the success. Lamar Odom & Pau Gasol BOTH struggled against Boston as well; people just tend to forget those little details and primarily shed light on how Kobe struggled. Conveniently ignoring how good he was against Orlando and basically every other series minus Boston in those two title runs.

Gasol couldn't even win a playoff game on a 50 win team; yet we really going to act like he was more valuable then Kobe from 08' to 10'? :facepalm

Yeah, Duncan didn't have much help in 05'. It's Timmy, a legend in his own right. We all know it's easier to win titles being a dominant big man with little help then a dominant perimeter player with little help; just ask Jordan about his first eight years in the league.

Despite all that; name me a player without a top fifty player by his side who has ever won back-to-back titles and led his team to three straight final appearances?

Just learn to appreciate greatness; insecurity isn't healthy.

[caliman]

Take a look at the top 50 list. Nostalgia aside, Pau Gasol is superior to many of them... both more talented and a better resume.


No, he isn't. Gasol as a top 50 player all time is laughable.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe has never won a championship with the best front-court, why do people keep insisting on saying that?

Bynum was crippled; Lamar & Pau alone does not constitute the best front-court. What has Pau achieved without Kobe, what has Odom achieved without Kobe? Kobe achieved a dynasty without both of them; but I can guess where that point is going right?

This forum is ridiculous towards Kobe. In 09' he played great in every series including the NBA finals. In 10'; he dominated yet again until LA faced Boston in a grueling seven game series. Despite him struggling scoring; he still didn't shoot much worse then Dirk. Difference being; Dirk is a big, and is expected to be more efficient then a volume scorer (playing shooting guard). Yet, when Dirk leads his team to a title; he's all the sudden a top three player (or to some) the best player in the league.

When Kobe wins back to back titles and leads his team to three straight final appearances; people try to overshadow that accomplishment by sugarcoating how great his teammates are. That's why I don't take this forum seriously. Every time I log on this forum, I see ten threads on the first page talking about Kobe. Basically every single one of them are agenda driven. If a fan creates a thread praising him; you have the same trolls coming in, accumulating 200+ replies basically belittling the guy every way possible.

The most intriguing observation is how Kobe & Dirk are treated. You have one guy, shooting 42%; getting a ton of contribution from his role players, and gets a ton of love. The other guy, struggled shooting (just like Dirk) but the table gets completely turned on him. Its these double standards that annoy the crap out of me.

As far as Kobe is concerned; he is the ONLY basketball player that have won back-to-back titles and led his team to three straight final appearances without having a top fifty player beside him.

No one ever mentions how terrible LA's back-court was during the run. Yeah Fish is a big game player and has made it count, but it's not like there's someone on those teams that could have relieved Kobe from ball-handling duties; setting up teammates or actually defend their man.

Basically Kobe won two titles with Gasol, Fisher, Ariza & Lamar (in 09') and Gasol, Artest, Lamar & injured Bynum.

Is it really that much more help then what Dirk & Duncan had during their title runs? Don't just look at the name on the jersey, actually look at how much their teammates contributed to the success. Lamar Odom & Pau Gasol BOTH struggled against Boston as well; people just tend to forget those little details and primarily shed light on how Kobe struggled. Conveniently ignoring how good he was against Orlando and basically every other series minus Boston in those two title runs.

Gasol couldn't even win a playoff game on a 50 win team; yet we really going to act like he was more valuable then Kobe from 08' to 10'? :facepalm

Yeah, Duncan didn't have much help in 05'. It's Timmy, a legend in his own right. We all know it's easier to win titles being a dominant big man with little help then a dominant perimeter player with little help; just ask Jordan about his first eight years in the league.

Despite all that; name me a player without a top fifty player by his side who has ever won back-to-back titles and led his team to three straight final appearances?

Just learn to appreciate greatness; insecurity isn't healthy.


I don't think anyone disputes Kobe's greatness. I do think that acting like the Lakers in 09 and 10 weren't stacked compared to the rest of the league is silly.

What other elite player had a team close to as good as Kobe those years? Lebron? nope
Wade? nope
Howard? maybe
Dirk? nope

The truth is that Kobe was one of the best players in the league and amongst the top 5 or so players, Kobe had by far the best team around him. That doesn't mean he isn't great.

I just don't like this notion of under rating Gasol and Odom and Artest and Ariza and Fisher and Bynum...etc.

And I hate the argument of:

"What did Gasol/Odom do without Kobe"....its silly. And even sillier when you act like Dirk was playing with great players. What had Kidd and Marion done without Dirk the last few years? What did Terry do without Dirk. What did Chandler do with Dirk? Peja?....etc. Can't have it both ways.

I don't really know the answer to the thread or what the criteria is. Jason Kidd is absolutely a top 50 player of all time so Dirk didn't win without one. Gasol is not a top 50 player....so Kobe did win without one.

However, everyone knows that Gasol is much better than Kidd right now and has been for a long time.

If you want to break it down to something you should use all nba teammates. Its not perfect, but its far better than all star or some weird top 50 thing....especially when it seems to me that people aren't considering primes.

Also, the reason Kobe and Dirk are held to different standards at times is because of their places in history. Kobe is getting compared to Duncan/Bird/Shaq/Hakeem. Those are some of the best players of all time. So when Kobe plays poorly, its more pronounced because of his company.

Dirk, on the other hand, is getting compared to guys like Malone and Barkley and KG and Robinson.....etc. Guys that aren't in the top 10 all time. Just the act of leading a team to the title helps Dirk out a lot in those comparisons. And of course, the main thing being that Dirk played on a huge underdog team this year. The mavs had no business winning. They were enormous dogs to even make it out of the 2nd round....hell, it was a toss up in round 1.

If you can't see the difference between the odds the Mavs had to overcome this year going through the blazers, lakers, thunder, and heat compared to what the Lakers had to overcome in 09 and 10.....then you are just simply extremely biased.

Double standards? I can't even imagine the hell that would break loose here if Kobe ever beat Lebron and Wade in the finals. Regarldess of how he played....ISH would have shut down for a month. And if he had played as clutch as Dirk and played sick? Again....I can't even imagine the shit the kobe stans like Chazzy would be throwing around.

[SCdac]

Are you guys really saying J-Kidd isn't top 50?

That's what I'm wondering. Jason Kidd is one of the best point guards I've ever seen play, and have watched many great point guards since getting into basketball. Even at his current age - he lead the Mavs handedly in assists and steals. He lead his own team to the Finals twice in his prime, which was a first for the Nets franchise. I'd consider him a top-50 player all time for sure.

[jlauber]

I don't hate Wilt because of Jlauber, I don't even hate him but I know many dislike him after all Jlaubers spamming.

I just think he gets overrated, like in this case, the guy played with 2 guys who are listed in the 50 greatest players thingy and suddenly he became a candidat for the topic, "Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate?". I understand if someone can argue about Cunningham not actually deserving the spot but Hal Greer is a sure lock.

Or all the myths spread by Jlauber, the guy is was "world class volleyball player", he was world class when it came to track and field events, he could touch the top of the backboard easily, he slept with 20 000 women, he could bench like no one else, he broke someones foot when he dunked a ball on the guys foot so hard, he once dunked a basketball when two fully grown NBA players hang on his arms etc... Exaggerating a little is ok but come on..

MYTHS that I spread??? What a clown you are Dickwad.

I have posted the articles which claimed that Wilt was a world-class volleyball player, as well as a quote from Pat Powers who captained the USA volleyball team. So, no, that was not MY claim (NOR WILT's BTW...who, himself, only claimed to have played against the best players in the world.) I don't recall ever saying that Wilt was a world class track-and-field star, although I have claimed that he was a world-class ATHLETE. How can you argue that point when he tried out for the Chiefs in the mid-60's, and none other than Hank Stram claimed that he would he an all-pro NFL player and IMMEDIATELY offered him a LEGITIMATE contract? Or that Wilt was offered not one, but TWO title fights with Ali? And, of course, he was a HIGH JUMP champion in college (as well as participating in KU's triple-jump, long jump, 4x100 relay team, 440, 880, and shot put.

As far as touching the top of the backboard, none other than Sonny Hill claimed as witnessing it (and BTW, Russell claims to have had his eyes at rim level...and we KNOW that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper.) We also had an article which credited Wilt with a FT line dunk (and without a full running start), AND, we KNOW that the NBA and NCAA banned the dunking of FT's BECAUSE of Wilt. BTW, Wilt was known to have dunked on a 12 ft rim, that not coincidently, happened to show up at KU in the 50's, when Wilt was attending school there.

Bench press strength? Just google Wilt's bench...you will find the internet PLASTERED with 500+ lb articles. And we KNOW that SI ran an article in 1964 which claimed that Wilt was benching 425 at that time...and that was long before he became a 300 lb behemoth later in his career. Not only that, but there is an eye-witness account of Wilt benching 465 lbs...at age 59.

In any case, I challenge you to find the video footage, or even a LEGITIMATE account that shows or claims that Wilt couldn't touch the top of the backboard when he was obviously attempting to do so; or couldn't bench press 500 lbs (or whatever) when he was attempting to max out.

And it was NOT Wilt who claimed to have broken the toe of a player with a dunk, but the ACTUAL player, himself (Johnny Kerr) who made that comment.

As for the 20,000 women...who really cares. It is irrelevant. We do KNOW (and has been substantiated by many of Wilt's contemporaries) that he was seen with MANY women.

So, when you dig up the actual footage that DISPUTES those claims, get back to me. I have always found it fascinating that with all of the supposed "myths" that abound on Wilt's amazing physical feats, that there has never been a LEGITIMATE source who has come forth and DISPUTED any of them.

BTW, how about these other "myths"...

Wilt being credited with a 100 pt game. Or supposedly averaging 50 ppg in a full season. Or averaging nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. Or having the ONLY FOUR 50-40 games (including a 78-43 game.) Or putting up 103 of the entire total of 131 30-30 games in NBA history. Or having 55 of the entire total of 61 40-30 games. Or having SIX of the 10 70+ point games in NBA history. Or 32 of the entire total of 62 60+ point games. Or having THREE 60+ point games on at least 70+ FG%, (and the highest FG% ever in a 60+ point game of 29-35, or .829.) Or grabbing 55 rebounds in one game (and outrebounding RUSSELL in that game, 55-19.) Or averaging 27+ rpg TWICE in full seasons. Or pulling down a playoff record of 41 rebounds (again, against Russell.) Or averaging 32 rpg in a playoff series (again, against Russell.) Or having two entire post-seasons of 29+ rpg (with a high of 30.2 rpg.) Or having a 30-31 post-season series (in seven games, and again, against Russell.) Or being the only center to have ever led the NBA in assists. Or leading the NBA in rebounding in 11 of his 14 seasons. Or putting up a 53-32-14 game on 24-29 shooting. Or having a 56-35 game five in a best-of-five playoff series. Or hanging a 50-35 elimination game on Russell. Or having the three highest "perfect" games in NBA history (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) Or making 35 straight FGAs. Or making 28-32 FTs in a game. Or blocking a KNOWN 23 shots in one game. Or having the ONLY 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.) Or having a playoff QUAD DOUBLE of 24-32-13-12 and again, against Russell. Or having the two highest FG% seasons in NBA history, and by far-and-away the biggest differentials against both the league average, and nearest competitor. Or putting up the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and on .625 shooting in a seven game Finals in '70.) Or having TEN 20-20 full seasons. Or SEVEN 30-20 full seasons. Or having FOUR 30-20 entire post-seasons (and EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons.) Or having a 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and .579 entire post-season. Or taking two teams to records of 68-13 and 69-13 and two dominating world titles. Or playing on a team that won 33 straight games. Yep, all of those "myths."

So, don't get "butthurt" when so MANY sources confirm these "myths." And, BTW, most all of them were NOT started by Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Are you for real? Both Greer and Cunningham are on the "50 greatest players in NBA history", Wilt has nothing at all to do on that list. And as if that wasn't enough he had a Chet Walker on his team averaging 19 points per game that season.

Once again, Dickwad, you are way off. Did Wilt play with a good supporting cast? Sure he did. BUT, take a look at the 60-21 Celtics roster that season. SIX HOFers, and perhaps the DEEPEST roster in NBA history. TEN QUALITY players (six of whom averaged double figure scoring.) And yet, Wilt and his 68-13 Sixers just OBLITERATED that team in the ECF's. They narrowly missed SWEEPING that Celtic team (losing game four in Boston by a 121-117 margin.) My god, in game five the Sixers spotted Boston a 17 point lead late in the first period, but, by late in the 4th quarter, the 76ers lead by a 131-104 margin (a 44 point turnaround in a little over two quarters of play), en route to a 140-116 win...in a game in which Wilt outscored Russell 29-4 (and with 22 of them coming in the first half when the game was still in doubt); outshooting Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisting Russell, 13-7; and outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

Now, how many other "great" players were CONSISTENTLY OUTGUNNED by HOFers in virtually EVERY post-season, and by margins as high as 8-2??? Wilt faced the Celtic dynasty in ten of his 14 seasons, and was outgunned in HOFers by as much as 9-1 against them...and in EVERY post-season series against them. Then, he faced the Knicks on four occasions, and with those NY teams having anywhere between FOUR to SIX HOFers.

So, while Wilt had some quality rosters, he was also battling LOADED rosters EVERY season.

[Doranku]

I don't think anyone disputes Kobe's greatness. I do think that acting like the Lakers in 09 and 10 weren't stacked compared to the rest of the league is silly.

What other elite player had a team close to as good as Kobe those years? Lebron? nope
Wade? nope
Howard? maybe
Dirk? nope

The truth is that Kobe was one of the best players in the league and amongst the top 5 or so players, Kobe had by far the best team around him. That doesn't mean he isn't great.

I just don't like this notion of under rating Gasol and Odom and Artest and Ariza and Fisher and Bynum...etc.

And I hate the argument of:

"What did Gasol/Odom do without Kobe"....its silly. And even sillier when you act like Dirk was playing with great players. What had Kidd and Marion done without Dirk the last few years? What did Terry do without Dirk. What did Chandler do with Dirk? Peja?....etc. Can't have it both ways.

I don't really know the answer to the thread or what the criteria is. Jason Kidd is absolutely a top 50 player of all time so Dirk didn't win without one. Gasol is not a top 50 player....so Kobe did win without one.

However, everyone knows that Gasol is much better than Kidd right now and has been for a long time.

If you want to break it down to something you should use all nba teammates. Its not perfect, but its far better than all star or some weird top 50 thing....especially when it seems to me that people aren't considering primes.

Also, the reason Kobe and Dirk are held to different standards at times is because of their places in history. Kobe is getting compared to Duncan/Bird/Shaq/Hakeem. Those are some of the best players of all time. So when Kobe plays poorly, its more pronounced because of his company.

Dirk, on the other hand, is getting compared to guys like Malone and Barkley and KG and Robinson.....etc. Guys that aren't in the top 10 all time. Just the act of leading a team to the title helps Dirk out a lot in those comparisons. And of course, the main thing being that Dirk played on a huge underdog team this year. The mavs had no business winning. They were enormous dogs to even make it out of the 2nd round....hell, it was a toss up in round 1.

If you can't see the difference between the odds the Mavs had to overcome this year going through the blazers, lakers, thunder, and heat compared to what the Lakers had to overcome in 09 and 10.....then you are just simply extremely biased.

Double standards? I can't even imagine the hell that would break loose here if Kobe ever beat Lebron and Wade in the finals. Regarldess of how he played....ISH would have shut down for a month. And if he had played as clutch as Dirk and played sick? Again....I can't even imagine the shit the kobe stans like Chazzy would be throwing around.

Melo in '09 had a very solid/deep team. Even though the Rockets series went to 7, I think that was easily LA's biggest challenge that year. It required 3 amazing performances from Kobe to take that team out.

Not saying that team was cut and dry better than LA of course, but they were definitely a formidable foe and without great performances from Kobe (especially in games 3 and 6), LA could have easily lost that series.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Isn't Jason Kidd a top 50 player?

The whole winning with or without a top 50 player argument is kind of dumb. Alot of players win with players that are considered top 50 players but weren't playing at a top 50 of all-time level at the time. On the other hand, some players win with players that are not considered top 50 players but were playing at a top 50 all-time level at the time. You can argue that although Gasol, Pierce, and Dumars aren't considered top 50 players ever, they were playing that well when Kobe, KG, and Isiah won their titles. You can argue that although Dirk, Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Magic, Bird, and Kareem have always seem to have won titles playing with at least 1 other top 50 player, that top 50 player wasn't always playing at a top 50 level in each of those titles.

Exactly, this type of stuff is trivial to begin with and not an accurate way of evaluating how impressive a championship run was, but this especially has to be kept in mind.

[NuggetsFan]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

Is it just me or does it make it obvious somebody's grasping at straws when they mention Barea? :oldlol:

[Duranthebest]

Dumars and Rodman are not top 50 anymore.

Paul Pierce isn't nor is Ray Allen.

Pretty simple explanation.

So Kevin Garnett was the undisputed best player while Pierce won finals mvp?:rolleyes:

[ShaqAttack3234]

So Kevin Garnett was the undisputed best player while Pierce won finals mvp?:rolleyes:

So by that logic, Duncan wasn't the undisputed best player on the 2007 Spurs, Magic wasn't the undisputed best player on the 1988 Lakers, Bird wasn't the undisputed best player on the 1981 Celtics and Kareem wasn't the undisputed best player on the 1980 Lakers?

Granted, KG and Pierce were closer in 2008 than those players, but KG was still clearly the best player on the 2008 Celtics.

One award isn't going to help your case.

KG in 2008
3rd in MVP voting
All-NBA First Team
Defensive Player Of the Year
All-Defensive First Team
Celtics leading scorer and rebounder during the Playoffs

To put that into perspective, Pierce was never All-NBA First Team in his career and was on the 3rd team in 2008, Pierce's highest finish in MVP voting was 7th, and he was 14th in 2008.

[millwad]

Once again, Dickwad, you are way off. Did Wilt play with a good supporting cast? Sure he did. BUT, take a look at the 60-21 Celtics roster that season. SIX HOFers, and perhaps the DEEPEST roster in NBA history. TEN QUALITY players (six of whom averaged double figure scoring.) And yet, Wilt and his 68-13 Sixers just OBLITERATED that team in the ECF's. They narrowly missed SWEEPING that Celtic team (losing game four in Boston by a 121-117 margin.) My god, in game five the Sixers spotted Boston a 17 point lead late in the first period, but, by late in the 4th quarter, the 76ers lead by a 131-104 margin (a 44 point turnaround in a little over two quarters of play), en route to a 140-116 win...in a game in which Wilt outscored Russell 29-4 (and with 22 of them coming in the first half when the game was still in doubt); outshooting Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisting Russell, 13-7; and outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

Now, how many other "great" players were CONSISTENTLY OUTGUNNED by HOFers in virtually EVERY post-season, and by margins as high as 8-2??? Wilt faced the Celtic dynasty in ten of his 14 seasons, and was outgunned in HOFers by as much as 9-1 against them...and in EVERY post-season series against them. Then, he faced the Knicks on four occasions, and with those NY teams having anywhere between FOUR to SIX HOFers.

So, while Wilt had some quality rosters, he was also battling LOADED rosters EVERY season.

So freaking what? Read my post and read the topic, I don't give a crap about what teams he faced, he had two guys in the top 50 and even if someone would like to take Cunningham out of the top 50 you'll still have Greer who's a sure lock.

The topic says, "Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate?", idiot, and Wilt never lead any team to a title without a top 50 player so he has nothing to do with that list..

[qrich]

Is it just me or does it make it obvious somebody's grasping at straws when they mention Barea? :oldlol:

Barea is the best point guard of all-time, where have you been. Magic, Isiah and even guys like Sam Cassell have nothing on him.

[millwad]

MYTHS that I spread??? What a clown you are Dickwad.

I have posted the articles which claimed that Wilt was a world-class volleyball player, as well as a quote from Pat Powers who captained the USA volleyball team. So, no, that was not MY claim (NOR WILT's BTW...who, himself, only claimed to have played against the best players in the world.) I don't recall ever saying that Wilt was a world class track-and-field star, although I have claimed that he was a world-class ATHLETE. How can you argue that point when he tried out for the Chiefs in the mid-60's, and none other than Hank Stram claimed that he would he an all-pro NFL player and IMMEDIATELY offered him a LEGITIMATE contract? Or that Wilt was offered not one, but TWO title fights with Ali? And, of course, he was a HIGH JUMP champion in college (as well as participating in KU's triple-jump, long jump, 4x100 relay team, 440, 880, and shot put.

As far as touching the top of the backboard, none other than Sonny Hill claimed as witnessing it (and BTW, Russell claims to have had his eyes at rim level...and we KNOW that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper.) We also had an article which credited Wilt with a FT line dunk (and without a full running start), AND, we KNOW that the NBA and NCAA banned the dunking of FT's BECAUSE of Wilt. BTW, Wilt was known to have dunked on a 12 ft rim, that not coincidently, happened to show up at KU in the 50's, when Wilt was attending school there.

Bench press strength? Just google Wilt's bench...you will find the internet PLASTERED with 500+ lb articles. And we KNOW that SI ran an article in 1964 which claimed that Wilt was benching 425 at that time...and that was long before he became a 300 lb behemoth later in his career. Not only that, but there is an eye-witness account of Wilt benching 465 lbs...at age 59.

In any case, I challenge you to find the video footage, or even a LEGITIMATE account that shows or claims that Wilt couldn't touch the top of the backboard when he was obviously attempting to do so; or couldn't bench press 500 lbs (or whatever) when he was attempting to max out.

And it was NOT Wilt who claimed to have broken the toe of a player with a dunk, but the ACTUAL player, himself (Johnny Kerr) who made that comment.

As for the 20,000 women...who really cares. It is irrelevant. We do KNOW (and has been substantiated by many of Wilt's contemporaries) that he was seen with MANY women.

So, when you dig up the actual footage that DISPUTES those claims, get back to me. I have always found it fascinating that with all of the supposed "myths" that abound on Wilt's amazing physical feats, that there has never been a LEGITIMATE source who has come forth and DISPUTED any of them.

BTW, how about these other "myths"...

Wilt being credited with a 100 pt game. Or supposedly averaging 50 ppg in a full season. Or averaging nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. Or having the ONLY FOUR 50-40 games (including a 78-43 game.) Or putting up 103 of the entire total of 131 30-30 games in NBA history. Or having 55 of the entire total of 61 40-30 games. Or having SIX of the 10 70+ point games in NBA history. Or 32 of the entire total of 62 60+ point games. Or having THREE 60+ point games on at least 70+ FG%, (and the highest FG% ever in a 60+ point game of 29-35, or .829.) Or grabbing 55 rebounds in one game (and outrebounding RUSSELL in that game, 55-19.) Or averaging 27+ rpg TWICE in full seasons. Or pulling down a playoff record of 41 rebounds (again, against Russell.) Or averaging 32 rpg in a playoff series (again, against Russell.) Or having two entire post-seasons of 29+ rpg (with a high of 30.2 rpg.) Or having a 30-31 post-season series (in seven games, and again, against Russell.) Or being the only center to have ever led the NBA in assists. Or leading the NBA in rebounding in 11 of his 14 seasons. Or putting up a 53-32-14 game on 24-29 shooting. Or having a 56-35 game five in a best-of-five playoff series. Or hanging a 50-35 elimination game on Russell. Or having the three highest "perfect" games in NBA history (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) Or making 35 straight FGAs. Or making 28-32 FTs in a game. Or blocking a KNOWN 23 shots in one game. Or having the ONLY 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.) Or having a playoff QUAD DOUBLE of 24-32-13-12 and again, against Russell. Or having the two highest FG% seasons in NBA history, and by far-and-away the biggest differentials against both the league average, and nearest competitor. Or putting up the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and on .625 shooting in a seven game Finals in '70.) Or having TEN 20-20 full seasons. Or SEVEN 30-20 full seasons. Or having FOUR 30-20 entire post-seasons (and EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons.) Or having a 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and .579 entire post-season. Or taking two teams to records of 68-13 and 69-13 and two dominating world titles. Or playing on a team that won 33 straight games. Yep, all of those "myths."

So, don't get "butthurt" when so MANY sources confirm these "myths." And, BTW, most all of them were NOT started by Chamberlain.

I never said most of them were started by Chamberlain but he had plenty of bs coming out of his mouth as well, like him dunking his FT's in high school and still there's no proof or footage of that, or that he slept with 20 000 women (including your mom), or that he was a good FT-shooter in college, haha, that he could touch the top of the back board..

The many myths actually only ruins his legacy, no normal person will fall for it, no one and you ain't normal.. There is no way that he actually broke Johnny Kerr's toe just by dunking a ball on it, that's something unheard of and if that even occured it must have been a freak accident, not actually just a ball landing on his toe. If you would know any physics at all, you'd know that it's not possible that from a dunk, a ball to get that kind of speed and force to crush actual bones and lets be real, Shaq's had harder dunks and he actually broke backboards and even Shaq wouldn't been able to crush bones, haha..

Regarding the bench press, again it's only in quotes like everything else of Wilt's amazing myths..

The dunking from the FT-line is pure crap as well, he played in the NBA for 15 seasons and still no one ever saw him dunk from the FT-line. If he'd would have such an easy time dunking from the FT-line, even without a full running start, he'd sure as hell would have done it in the NBA. Running your mouth isn't enough.

And the backboard, yeah right, like everything else it's a quote and in that case many NBA players have touched the backboard but still it's never been recorded.....

And world class high jumper, what kind of BS is that? Winning in college doesn't make you world class, Wilt was not even anywhere close to the record to be called a world class high jumper, you idiot.

And again, Wilt neither was a world class volleyballplayer nor did he play against world class volleyball players. He played in a crappy league who only existed for 4 years where women and men played the game of volleyball on the same teams, and he only played for one year. Stop with the nonsense.

You know, you're the one that needs actual proof instead of crappy quotes, I'm just saying, if he did those things, prove it and don't "prove it" by posting qoutes. Quotes and articles are what built up these myths, there's no actual footage of Wilt doing any of this crap at all, NONE. Oh, lets guess, cameras never existed when Wilt did something great?

Don't be MAD, Jeff Lauber!

[DJ Leon Smith]

If you want to measure the weakness of supporting casts, a better way would be if a player won a title without another all-star (that season) on their team. That way you can't say so-and-so won with a top 50 guy if it was that top 50 guy's first or last season (for example).

[Story Up]

Is it just me or does it make it obvious somebody's grasping at straws when they mention Barea? :oldlol:
DD he not play amazing though?
He stepped and helped ALOT!

[EricForman]

kobe, duncan, dirk... they must be the undisputed best player of the team

it is SO misleading to put kobe on here, as if he pulled a Dirk-this-season, Duncan-in-03, or Hakeem-in-94 by winning with a bunch of guys who are just good but not great. Please. Pau could finish in the top 50 and Kobe's #3, #4, #5 guys are better than most other post-1980s champion's 3-5.

I'd also like to point out that throughout the 2010 playoff run, Artest dropped a 20/5/5 (in game 7 of the finals) and Odom had like a 19/19 game. Bynum had a 21/11. These were Kobe's 3rd, 4th, and 5th best teammates dropping those numbers.

Kobe's great, top ten all time, but HELL NO his 09/2010 titles do not belong in the same rank as Hakeem in 94, duncan in 03, or Dirk in 2011.

[EricForman]

Kobe has never won a championship with the best front-court, why do people keep insisting on saying that?






Basically Kobe won two titles with Gasol, Fisher, Ariza & Lamar (in 09') and Gasol, Artest, Lamar & injured Bynum.

Is it really that much more help then what Dirk & Duncan had during their title runs?



You have a case for Kobe having equal or less help than Dirk, but Duncan? Nope.

Tim Duncan won the title in 99 with a DAvid Robinson who wasn't as good as 09 Gasol and the rest of the cast were guys like Avery Johnson, Sean Elliot, Jaren Jackson and Malik Rose.

In 2003, he won with a rookie Manu Ginobili who was hurt and Parker who was so inconsistent he was actually benched in favor of Speedy Claxton. Stephen Jackson was probably that Spurs team's second best player.

I can't stand when people try to play up Duncan's cast. No. Duncan had the weaker cast consistently from 99 to 2004 or so, check out the playoff battles between Duncan vs the Lakers from 99 to 2004 and the talent was overwhemlingly stacked in Lakers favor. And for the record I believe the records during that 6 year stretch was Lakers 3, Spurs 2

[ShaqAttack3234]

it is SO misleading to put kobe on here, as if he pulled a Dirk-this-season, Duncan-in-03, or Hakeem-in-94 by winning with a bunch of guys who are just good but not great. Please. Pau could finish in the top 50 and Kobe's #3, #4, #5 guys are better than most other post-1980s champion's 3-5.

I'd also like to point out that throughout the 2010 playoff run, Artest dropped a 20/5/5 (in game 7 of the finals) and Odom had like a 19/19 game. Bynum had a 21/11. These were Kobe's 3rd, 4th, and 5th best teammates dropping those numbers.

Kobe's great, top ten all time, but HELL NO his 09/2010 titles do not belong in the same rank as Hakeem in 94, duncan in 03, or Dirk in 2011.

Kobe averaged 29-30 ppg, 5-6 rpg and 5-6 apg on 46-47% from the field with a TS% of 56-57% during those runs. His run definitely doesn't rank below Dirk's.

[EricForman]

Kobe averaged 29-30 ppg, 5-6 rpg and 5-6 apg on 46-47% from the field with a TS% of 56-57% during those runs. His run definitely doesn't rank below Dirk's.

I'm not taking credit away from Kobe, who is definitely one of the best ever, but the notion that he didn't have alot of help is false. He had more help than the usual champions. Again, I challenge anyone to find anothe champion in the last 20 years or so in which the 5th best guy could drop a 20/5/5 or the 4th best guy could drop a 19/19.

If you look at championship teams, these "star numbers" usually belong to the top two guys, maybe three. Kobe was on a team where the 5th guy could do that.

and then you can consider Fisher, the 6th (or 7th?) best guy who hit several game winners during those runs too. I mean, come on...

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not taking credit away from Kobe, who is definitely one of the best ever, but the notion that he didn't have alot of help is false. He had more help than the usual champions. Again, I challenge anyone to find anothe champion in the last 20 years or so in which the 5th best guy could drop a 20/5/5 or the 4th best guy could drop a 19/19.

If you look at championship teams, these "star numbers" usually belong to the top two guys, maybe three. Kobe was on a team where the 5th guy could do that.

and then you can consider Fisher, the 6th (or 7th?) best guy who hit several game winners during those runs too. I mean, come on...

The Lakers 4th and 5th best players can consistently put up numbers like that only in videogames.

Kobe has won 5 rings with just one all star teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings with just one HOF teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings without an all league 1st team defensive teammate.

Nobody else comes close :confusedshrug:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm not taking credit away from Kobe, who is definitely one of the best ever, but the notion that he didn't have alot of help is false. He had more help than the usual champions. Again, I challenge anyone to find anothe champion in the last 20 years or so in which the 5th best guy could drop a 20/5/5 or the 4th best guy could drop a 19/19.

If you look at championship teams, these "star numbers" usually belong to the top two guys, maybe three. Kobe was on a team where the 5th guy could do that.

and then you can consider Fisher, the 6th (or 7th?) best guy who hit several game winners during those runs too. I mean, come on...

If you look over most runs, you'll find that a lot of teams had multiple guys step up with big games like that over the course of their run.

Look at the 2003 Spurs who you mentioned before.

Tony Parker had 5 games with 25+ points that playoff run and 7 with 20+ points

Stephen Jackson had 6 games with 20+ points that playoff run including 23/7/5 and 21/6/5 games as well as a 15/10 game.

Malik Rose had a 27/13 game off the bench, a 25/6 game off the bench, a 10/14 game off the bench and a 12/11 game off the bench.

Manu Ginobili had games wih 15, 17 and 21 points off the bench during that run.

David Robinson had an 18/8 game on 8/8 shooting, a 13/17 game and a 14/11 game during that run.

Bruce Bowen had a 27 point game on 10/12 shooting with 7 3s during that run as well a 19 point game on 7/8 shooting with 5 3s.

Kobe's cast was better, but the point is that for a team to win a championship, you need help. Even a team like the 2003 Spurs had quite a few different guys stepping up with big games.

[Nevaeh]

The Lakers 4th and 5th best players can consistently put up numbers like that only in videogames.

Kobe has won 5 rings with just one all star teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings with just one HOF teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings without an all league 1st team defensive teammate.

Nobody else comes close :confusedshrug:

He was only Leader of his team for just 2 of his 5 rings though :no:

[Calabis]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

http://i614.photobucket.com/albums/tt224/supnick/original%20content/cough-1.gif

So u'r telling me that when Kobe won, he wasn't playing with two of the top 5 bigs in the league(those respective seasons), giving him the best front court in the league, the most versatile 6th man, a damn good perimeter defender, and a all time great coach? GTFOH!!!

[Rnbizzle]

Don't you guys think most players are being ranked in the top 50 are in there partially because of the titles they have won?

[Calabis]

He was only Leader of his team for just 2 of his 5 rings though :no:

:applause:

3 of those titles with a top 7 player all time:oldlol:

Kobe agenda threads 1.2 million and counting....

[G.O.A.T]

So Kevin Garnett was the undisputed best player while Pierce won finals mvp?:rolleyes:

Shaqattack already covered this. I want to thank you for showing me that I should of had you on ignore. Trying learning about more than the last 5 years of hoops.

[G.O.A.T]

Don't you guys think most players are being ranked in the top 50 are in there partially because of the titles they have won?

It's sort of chicken and egg, but I'm on the eggs side you Chicken lover.

Those players won titles because they had the mental and physical skills to be among the 50 greatest players ever.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

He was only Leader of his team for just 2 of his 5 rings though :no:

And?

One man doesn't trump ten. What would be more impressive the 2nd best player in the league winning a title with the best player in the league and 10 d league scrubs or the 3rd best player in the league winning a title with 10 other all stars?

[ShaqAttack3234]

And?

One man doesn't trump ten. What would be more impressive the 2nd best player in the league winning a title with the best player in the league and 10 d league scrubs or the 3rd best player in the league winning a title with 10 other all stars?

Well, the 2001 cast performed well in the playoffs. Fisher shot the ball extremely well, Grant was a big factor defending Sheed, Webber and Duncan, and Fox played good all around basketball.

The 2000 team was the most flawed outside of their stars, and the 2002 cast was pretty weak with Fisher shooting 36% in the playoffs, Samaki Walker starting and Devean George playing significant minutes, though Horry had some big moments and was very good in the Sacramento series.

But it's a bit of a stretch to call Kobe the second best player in the league in 2002. I remember that some were calling him that, but Duncan was clearly a better player that year, imo.

I'd rank Duncan 2nd in 2001 as well, though Kobe was clearly the 2nd best player in the playoffs, imo, so on the strength of that, you could argue him 2nd.

But in 2000? Around the 10th best player that year.

[Nevaeh]

And?

One man doesn't trump ten. What would be more impressive the 2nd best player in the league winning a title with the best player in the league and 10 d league scrubs or the 3rd best player in the league winning a title with 10 other all stars?

I'm just keeping you consistent with the Thread Title that's all. The Title says "Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate". Shaq did it with Kobe as the second best player on his team 3 straight times (Kobe wasn't top 50 during that time either).

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm just keeping you consistent with the Thread Title that's all. The Title says "Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate". Shaq did it with Kobe as the second best player on his team 3 straight times (Kobe wasn't top 50 during that time either).

He was 21 years old. Jordan wasn't a top 50 player at that age either. He was a rookie. What a silly stipulation. At the end of the day Kobe will be ranked higher than Shaq and whatever knock you believe it to be win a title with a top 7 player will only apply even more to Shaq. :confusedshrug:

[EricForman]

The Lakers 4th and 5th best players can consistently put up numbers like that only in videogames.

Kobe has won 5 rings with just one all star teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings with just one HOF teammate per title team.
Kobe has won 5 rings without an all league 1st team defensive teammate.

Nobody else comes close :confusedshrug:


Nobody else has come close? First of all, I laugh at the "all star" notion again. Bynum has never been an all star but every GM or coach would agree he's more valuable than many players who have been all-stars.

Anyone with eyes and basketball knowledge know that Gasol+Odom+Bynum+Artest is a VERY STRONG cast, especially considering the teams they went against (Who the hell did Nash have on his team during the 2010 Conference finals? Amare, JRich and then Jared Dudley and Channing Frye????? Who was on that 09 Rockets team that Lakers beat in 7? Aaron Brooks and Carl Landry and Shane Battier?)

SECOND of all, if you want to play the BS all star game and say how Kobe has won titles with only one other all star. Then I say Kobe has also LOST titles on teams with 3 other all stars or 3 other hall of famers.

I'm not trying to say Kobe has the most stacked cast ever, but if we're talking about people who won with little help, KOBE DOESN'T BELONG ON THAT LIST. He had PRIME FREAKING SHAQ for the first three titles and the most intimidating front line during his last two. If you watch the finals against Celtics, or the WCF against hte Suns, the biggest frustrations for the other team were THE LAKER'S INSANE LENGTH (TV announcers must have mentioned that 50 times per game), not, say, Kobe's shot creation or whatever.

Kobe had alot of help. More help than more than the average champion. Stop trying to argue otherwise.

[EricForman]

And?

One man doesn't trump ten. What would be more impressive the 2nd best player in the league winning a title with the best player in the league and 10 d league scrubs or the 3rd best player in the league winning a title with 10 other all stars?

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Exel
Glen Rice (a year removed from dropping 26 a game)
Isiah Rider
Gary Payton (just a year removed from averaging 22 and 8)
Karl Malone (just year removed from 20/10)
Mitch Richmond
Horace Grant
Robert Horry
Rick Fox


Just a few names that balled with Kobe and Shaq. D League scrubs?

I think it's really pathetic you Kobe fans are trying to twist history and pretend like Kobe didn't have a great help when he won titles... I mean the title of this thread hints/implies that Kobe has pulled a Hakeem-in-94 (winning with a bunch of good but not great players) and that's just bullf*ckingsh*t. You guys gotta stop with this mess. It's like I say Kobe is a top ten al ltime and it ain't enough, you clowns wanna push him up to spots that are above Shaq and Duncan...

Shake my damn head....

[caliman]

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Exel
Glen Rice (a year removed from dropping 26 a game)
Isiah Rider
Gary Payton (just a year removed from averaging 22 and 8)
Karl Malone (just year removed from 20/10)
Mitch Richmond
Horace Grant
Robert Horry
Rick Fox


Just a few names that balled with Kobe and Shaq. D League scrubs?



Are you serious with this? EJ and NVE aren't worth mentioning since they weren't on any of the title teams. Rice was not GLEN RICE when he got to the Lakers. He was coming off an elbow injury and was never the same. Rider? Are you f*ckin serious? What did he do in LA? What did Richmond do? The only thing I remember him doing that season is dribbling out the clock in Game 4 of the Finals.

Grant, Horry, and Fox were quality role players. Malone was injured for the season he was here and Payton was a shell of himself. Let's not act like Shaq and Kobe balled with theses dudes in their primes.

The title of the thread was about titles won without top 50 teammates and their is no doubt that Kobe won his last 2 under that distinction. Even that "dominating front line" is flawed since Bynum was injured for every title run and never at full strength.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Nobody else has come close? First of all, I laugh at the "all star" notion again. Bynum has never been an all star but every GM or coach would agree he's more valuable than many players who have been all-stars.

Anyone with eyes and basketball knowledge know that Gasol+Odom+Bynum+Artest is a VERY STRONG cast, especially considering the teams they went against (Who the hell did Nash have on his team during the 2010 Conference finals? Amare, JRich and then Jared Dudley and Channing Frye????? Who was on that 09 Rockets team that Lakers beat in 7? Aaron Brooks and Carl Landry and Shane Battier?)

SECOND of all, if you want to play the BS all star game and say how Kobe has won titles with only one other all star. Then I say Kobe has also LOST titles on teams with 3 other all stars or 3 other hall of famers.

I'm not trying to say Kobe has the most stacked cast ever, but if we're talking about people who won with little help, KOBE DOESN'T BELONG ON THAT LIST. He had PRIME FREAKING SHAQ for the first three titles and the most intimidating front line during his last two. If you watch the finals against Celtics, or the WCF against hte Suns, the biggest frustrations for the other team were THE LAKER'S INSANE LENGTH (TV announcers must have mentioned that 50 times per game), not, say, Kobe's shot creation or whatever.

Kobe had alot of help. More help than more than the average champion. Stop trying to argue otherwise.

The same Bynum who averaged 7.4 pts and 5.3 rebounds in the playoffs for those two championships? He's more valuable than an average all star? :facepalm

Lakers players have big name recognition but that doesn't make them better. Among the 5 titles who is the best 2nd best teammate Kobe has had? Glen Rice? Lamar Odom? Are they better than guys like Dennis Rodman, Tony Parker, James Worthy, Robert Parrish, and Ray Allen?

Malone and Payton were not all stars in 2004. Can you imagine if Kobe played with 3 other all stars like Paul Pierce? There would be Armageddon on these boards. He gets one and only one and if he wins its a knock on him because he needed another all star to win :lol

Basketball isn't a 2v2 sport. Among the basketball legends with multiple championship to their name Kobe had less help than them. Often significantly less help. Larry Bird never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates. Micheal Jordan's Bulls had 3 players make the all star team in 94 (the year after Jordan 1st retired), Magic got Kareem AND Worthy, not just one of them. The Kobe had amazing teammates myth is hilarious.

[iamgine]

Kobe wasn't top 50 players when Shaq led the team to threepeats.

[Bring-Your-Js]

Shelving Peak Shaq as "One All-Star teammate".

:oldlol:

[bdreason]

I just wanted to add that I think people forget how well Parker played during a couple of those Spurs runs. He may not be top 50 all-time, but he was playing like one of the best PG's in the world during some of those playoff runs. I just remember him getting to the rim at will, and scoring with great efficiency despite being unable to shoot the 3 ball. Guy was tearing down defenses like the Tasmanian Devil.

[Bring-Your-Js]

I just wanted to add that I think people forget how well Parker played during a couple of those Spurs runs. He may not be top 50 all-time, but he was playing like one of the best PG's in the world during some of those playoff runs. I just remember him getting to the rim at will, and scoring with great efficiency despite being unable to shoot the 3 ball. Guy was tearing down defenses like the Tasmanian Devil.

Excellent point.

Parker was one of the best PGs on the planet when it came to getting into and scoring in the paint. No wonder Spurs won two post-rule changes. Manu is also a certain future HOFer. Bruce Bowen is arguably the best perimeter defender of his era, and Robinson was still a factor on the 1999 & 2003 teams.

Duncan is not Don Olajuwon. :no:

[KingBeasley08]

Shelving Peak Shaq as "One All-Star teammate".

:oldlol:
:oldlol:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Shelving Peak Shaq as "One All-Star teammate".

:oldlol:

How many all stars is he? 2? 3? 4?

How many average HOF is he worth? 2? 3? 4?

How is he not regarded as the GOAT if he is worth 2 or 3 HOFers?

[rmt]

If you look over most runs, you'll find that a lot of teams had multiple guys step up with big games like that over the course of their run.

Look at the 2003 Spurs who you mentioned before.

Tony Parker had 5 games with 25+ points that playoff run and 7 with 20+ points

TP averaged 14.7 pts and 3.5 asst for the whole playoffs.


Stephen Jackson had 6 games with 20+ points that playoff run including 23/7/5 and 21/6/5 games as well as a 15/10 game.

SJAX averaged 12.8 pts and 2.7 asst.


Malik Rose had a 27/13 game off the bench, a 25/6 game off the bench, a 10/14 game off the bench and a 12/11 game off the bench.

Malik averaged 9.3 pts. and 5.8 reb.


Manu Ginobili had games wih 15, 17 and 21 points off the bench during that run.

Manu averaged 9.4 pts and 2.9 asst.


David Robinson had an 18/8 game on 8/8 shooting, a 13/17 game and a 14/11 game during that run.

DRob averaged 7.8 pts and 6.6 reb.


Bruce Bowen had a 27 point game on 10/12 shooting with 7 3s during that run as well a 19 point game on 7/8 shooting with 5 3s.

Bowen averaged 6.9 pts and 2.9 reb.


Kobe's cast was better, but the point is that for a team to win a championship, you need help. Even a team like the 2003 Spurs had quite a few different guys stepping up with big games.

I think it's better to look at averages than cherry-pick certain games - then you can see the contribution for the whole playoff run. In any single game, anyone can have a good game but the typical contribution is seen in the averages.

To me, you have to look at what's typical/usual production. Were the players at the beginning of their careers (like TP, SJAX or Manu) or at the end of their careers (like Kidd, DRob) or in the prime of their careers (like Gasol, Odom, Artest) and are they performing at typical/usual production for that stage of their careers?

Now, granted Gasol did not perform in '11 playoffs in his typical manner, but he surely did in 09 and 10 as befitted his all-star and all-nba honors in those years. In contrast, no one in their right minds could say that TP, SJAX, Manu, Kidd or DRob were performing in 03 and 11 in their typical (prime) form or all-star or all-nba level.

TP was 20 years old and in his second year. Both SJax (2nd year player) and Manu (rookie) had never played a playoff game ever. Kidd and DRob were 38 years old. The former had virtually no experience and the latter were just ancient. Parker was benched in the final quarter of game 6 of the Finals for Speedy Claxton - that's the Spurs' #2 option for you. I don't see how they can be compared to a prime Gasol who played great in 09 and 10.

Kobe has had lots of help. Comparing his help to Hakeem (94) or Duncan (03) is just nuts.

This is not even mentioning the difference in payroll. Lakers $79mil (09) and $86mil (10) to Spurs $53mil in which Steve Smith ($10mil- 3rd highest) and Danny Ferry ($5mil - 4th highest) didn't contribute much. Spurs were not the typical team where the highest paid players contribute the most, but where #2, #3 and #4 options were on rookie contracts (1st or 2nd year players) and DRob was overpaid (for his contribution).

Excellent point.

Parker was one of the best PGs on the planet when it came to getting into and scoring in the paint. No wonder Spurs won two post-rule changes. Manu is also a certain future HOFer. Bruce Bowen is arguably the best perimeter defender of his era, and Robinson was still a factor on the 1999 & 2003 teams.

Duncan is not Don Olajuwon. :no:

Not in '03. Parker and Manu were nowhere near the players that they are today. Parker was a 20 year old, 2nd year player, benched in the 4th quarter of the Finals, game 6 for Speedy Claxton. Manu was a rookie and had never played a playoff game before 03.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

prime Artest :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Melo in '09 had a very solid/deep team. Even though the Rockets series went to 7, I think that was easily LA's biggest challenge that year. It required 3 amazing performances from Kobe to take that team out.

Not saying that team was cut and dry better than LA of course, but they were definitely a formidable foe and without great performances from Kobe (especially in games 3 and 6), LA could have easily lost that series.

I agree. I just don't think Melo is in that elite range as a player.

[LJJ]

How many all stars is he? 2? 3? 4?

How many average HOF is he worth? 2? 3? 4?

How is he not regarded as the GOAT if he is worth 2 or 3 HOFers?

Shaq's peak play is easily in the conversation for GOAT peak play.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Shaq's peak play is easily in the conversation for GOAT peak play.

How about LeBron's peak play? I thought watching him fail to win the title with BOTH Dwayne Wade AND Chris Bosh people would start to realize that they just don't just hand over titles to the best player in the game like its a giant cakewalk.

[DJ Leon Smith]

I love how everyone ignored my post here. I think I'm going to get everyone who responded to this thread banned, just because I can.

Get your replies in ASAP, because you're about to be gone. Sorry.

[ShaqAttack3234]

TP averaged 14.7 pts and 3.5 asst for the whole playoffs.



SJAX averaged 12.8 pts and 2.7 asst.



Malik averaged 9.3 pts. and 5.8 reb.



Manu averaged 9.4 pts and 2.9 asst.



DRob averaged 7.8 pts and 6.6 reb.



Bowen averaged 6.9 pts and 2.9 reb.



I think it's better to look at averages than cherry-pick certain games - then you can see the contribution for the whole playoff run. In any single game, anyone can have a good game but the typical contribution is seen in the averages.

To me, you have to look at what's typical/usual production. Were the players at the beginning of their careers (like TP, SJAX or Manu) or at the end of their careers (like Kidd, DRob) or in the prime of their careers (like Gasol, Odom, Artest) and are they performing at typical/usual production for that stage of their careers?

Now, granted Gasol did not perform in '11 playoffs in his typical manner, but he surely did in 09 and 10 as befitted his all-star and all-nba honors in those years. In contrast, no one in their right minds could say that TP, SJAX, Manu, Kidd or DRob were performing in 03 and 11 in their typical (prime) form or all-star or all-nba level.

TP was 20 years old and in his second year. Both SJax (2nd year player) and Manu (rookie) had never played a playoff game ever. Kidd and DRob were 38 years old. The former had virtually no experience and the latter were just ancient. Parker was benched in the final quarter of game 6 of the Finals for Speedy Claxton - that's the Spurs' #2 option for you. I don't see how they can be compared to a prime Gasol who played great in 09 and 10.

Kobe has had lots of help. Comparing his help to Hakeem (94) or Duncan (03) is just nuts.

This is not even mentioning the difference in payroll. Lakers $79mil (09) and $86mil (10) to Spurs $53mil in which Steve Smith ($10mil- 3rd highest) and Danny Ferry ($5mil - 4th highest) didn't contribute much. Spurs were not the typical team where the highest paid players contribute the most, but where #2, #3 and #4 options were on rookie contracts (1st or 2nd year players) and DRob was overpaid (for his contribution).


Not in '03. Parker and Manu were nowhere near the players that they are today. Parker was a 20 year old, 2nd year player, benched in the 4th quarter of the Finals, game 6 for Speedy Claxton. Manu was a rookie and had never played a playoff game before 03.

I was responding to Eric Forman who brought up single games for guys like Bynum, Odom and Artest.

Duncan's 2003 cast definitely wasn't great by championship standards, and it took a legendary run by Tim to win, but it's not like he had a bad cast. The Spurs did have depth and talent around him.

Rose and Robinson were a good big man duo to have alongside Duncan. Robinson was still a formidable defensive presence and a solid rebounder who could hit open 15 footers or finish when he was set up around the rim. Rose was a great hustle player who could defend, rebound and score at times.

Bowen was probably the best perimeter defender in the game and he consistently hit those corner 3s well enough to lead the league in 3P%. Having a defender like Bowen was very important considering they faced Kobe in the playoffs.

Stephen Jackson and Manu both had the ability to shoot, create their own shots, pass and defend pretty well. Having both of those guys gives you a productive shooting guard position. Jackson could play the 3 as well.

Parker was inconsistent during that playoff run, but he could make things happen with his penetration. His quickness made him a dangerous scorer at times, and that did pay off during the playoffs. Speedy Claxton was a capable backup who made some contributions during that run as well.

And the team played good defense, that was anchored by Duncan of course, but the players also bought into what Pop preached at the defensive end.

They didn't have a 2nd scorer who you could depend on every night, but they were pretty much two deep at every position. And you at least had to guard pretty much all of the Spurs rotation players, the one least capable of scoring was Bowen, but you couldn't forget about him altogether because of the corner 3s.

Because of that depth, more often than not, Duncan had a teammate scoring 20+ during that run, it was just not the same guy every night.

[Bigsmoke]

Kobe :confusedshrug:


Gasol is top 70 if not top 60 but sure not top 50.

[Bigsmoke]

this thread would be a little more awesome if the second option wasnt a superstar or something.

there are a lot of team that won without a 2nd option thats a top 50 player. Hell, nobody on the 2004 Pistons were good enough be crack top 50

[guy]

The Lakers 4th and 5th best players can consistently put up numbers like that only in videogames.

No, they can't consistently put up numbers like that because they don't have larger roles because they have such great teammates around them, which is what makes the Lakers so great in the first place. If Gasol, Odom, Bynum, and Artest all averaged what they were capable of and no player had a drop off, the Lakers would average +120 ppg and +50 rpg. Obviously we know thats not how the game works. They are not consistent with those numbers mainly because of that reason. If they were in different situations, I can easily see them putting up better numbers.

In 2010, Gasol was 18/11, Odom was 11/10, Bynum was 15/8, and Artest was 11/4. If they were in different situations where they took on a larger role, like they would have to on most other teams, I could easily see Gasol with 21/12, Odom with 17/11, Byum with 18/12, and Artest with 15/5 (Artest on the Rockets the year before was 17/5/3).

Now if you want to say in Bynum's case that he's injury prone, and thats why he's not consistent with those numbers, then fine. But for the most part for all those guys, its cause of the roles they play and there's only so much stats to go around.



Kobe has won 5 rings with just one all star teammate per title team.

Every championship team in the past 20 years has only had 2 all-stars on their team except for the 2008 Celtics, so thats not really saying much.

And you have to remember that before expansion in the mid 80s, there was more all-stars per team in general because there were still 24 spots on the all-star team but like 3-7 less teams. If the NBA cut down to 23-27 teams, you would see much of the same thing.



Kobe has won 5 rings with just one HOF teammate per title team.

Okay for 3 of them it wasn't just any HOFer. It was one of the most dominat players ever in the middle of arguably the most dominant peak ever. Way to downplay it.



Kobe has won 5 rings without an all league 1st team defensive teammate.

:oldlol: What an obscure observation. Here's another one. In the past 20 years, Kobe is the only player in the top 20 all-time that has had an all-nba 1st team player on 3 of his championships (00-02 Shaq). Jordan only had one (96 Pippen). Duncan had none. Hakeem had none. Shaq only had one (02 Kobe). Wade only had one (06 Shaq). KG had none. And even if you go back to the 80s, it was only Kareem that had 3 (85, 87-88 Magic). Magic only had one (80 Kareem), Bird had none, and Dr. J and Moses each had one (each other in 83.)

Kobe has had plenty of help.

[ErhnamDjinn]

Are you guys really saying J-Kidd isn't top 50?
he's top 50 but no longer a top 50 when he was helping Dirk, career wise he's top 50 current J-Kidd is a tier 12-10 pg in the league. The rest of the Mavs are just old veteran guys with hunger and passion Dallas showed how it was to play team ball. Its was a joint effort.

Unlike what some other people say here like Kobe not getting help from Gasol,Bynum and Odom/Artest.

Because Gasol/Bynum combo is already as scary as F*ck when it comes to big men then you have a do it all in Odom of the bench. Then general specialists in Aretst/Ariza

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No, they can't consistently put up numbers like that because they don't have larger roles because they have such great teammates around them, which is what makes the Lakers so great in the first place. If Gasol, Odom, Bynum, and Artest all averaged what they were capable of and no player had a drop off, the Lakers would average +120 ppg and +50 rpg. Obviously we know thats not how the game works. They are not consistent with those numbers mainly because of that reason. If they were in different situations, I can easily see them putting up better numbers.

In 2010, Gasol was 18/11, Odom was 11/10, Bynum was 15/8, and Artest was 11/4. If they were in different situations where they took on a larger role, like they would have to on most other teams, I could easily see Gasol with 21/12, Odom with 17/11, Byum with 18/12, and Artest with 15/5 (Artest on the Rockets the year before was 17/5/3).

Now if you want to say in Bynum's case that he's injury prone, and thats why he's not consistent with those numbers, then fine. But for the most part for all those guys, its cause of the roles they play and there's only so much stats to go around.



I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. You are projecting a 21/12 season for Pau Gasol even though his peak numbers as the top dog in Memphis were 20.8 ppg and 9.8 rebounds in 2006.

You are projecting 17 points and 11 rebounds for Odom when he was asked to take on a larger role in the offense for the Pre Gasol Lakers his peak numbers were 15.9 ppg and 9.8 rebounds.

You are projecting 18/12 numbers from a guy who misses half of the season every year with a knee injury

Lastly, you are hyping up the scoring abilities of probably the least efficient SF in the league.



Every championship team in the past 20 years has only had 2 all-stars on their team except for the 2008 Celtics, so thats not really saying much.

And you have to remember that before expansion in the mid 80s, there was more all-stars per team in general because there were still 24 spots on the all-star team but like 3-7 less teams. If the NBA cut down to 23-27 teams, you would see much of the same thing.

Kobe isn't compared to his contemporaries. He is compared to guys like Jordan, Bird and Magic. No amount of contraction would change the fact that Odom and Rice don't compare to the 2nd best teammates those three won titles with.

Any future success of the Heat will likely include 2 all star teammates for Wade and LeBron.



Okay for 3 of them it wasn't just any HOFer. It was one of the most dominat players ever in the middle of arguably the most dominant peak ever. Way to downplay it.

Shaq was awesome. So was Magic. So was Kareem. Somehow its only Kobe who is penalized for playing with an all time great when half of the top 15 players in the games history have played with eachother.



:oldlol: What an obscure observation. Here's another one. In the past 20 years, Kobe is the only player in the top 20 all-time that has had an all-nba 1st team player on 3 of his championships (00-02 Shaq). Jordan only had one (96 Pippen). Duncan had none. Hakeem had none. Shaq only had one (02 Kobe). Wade only had one (06 Shaq). KG had none. And even if you go back to the 80s, it was only Kareem that had 3 (85, 87-88 Magic). Magic only had one (80 Kareem), Bird had none, and Dr. J and Moses each had one (each other in 83.)

So if the Heat would have won the title last year, Wade would have been a worse player in this stat? :oldlol:

That's how you know its stupid and doesn't measure anything.

[Bring-Your-Js]

No, they can't consistently put up numbers like that because they don't have larger roles because they have such great teammates around them, which is what makes the Lakers so great in the first place. If Gasol, Odom, Bynum, and Artest all averaged what they were capable of and no player had a drop off, the Lakers would average +120 ppg and +50 rpg. Obviously we know thats not how the game works. They are not consistent with those numbers mainly because of that reason. If they were in different situations, I can easily see them putting up better numbers.

In 2010, Gasol was 18/11, Odom was 11/10, Bynum was 15/8, and Artest was 11/4. If they were in different situations where they took on a larger role, like they would have to on most other teams, I could easily see Gasol with 21/12, Odom with 17/11, Byum with 18/12, and Artest with 15/5 (Artest on the Rockets the year before was 17/5/3).

Now if you want to say in Bynum's case that he's injury prone, and thats why he's not consistent with those numbers, then fine. But for the most part for all those guys, its cause of the roles they play and there's only so much stats to go around.



Every championship team in the past 20 years has only had 2 all-stars on their team except for the 2008 Celtics, so thats not really saying much.

And you have to remember that before expansion in the mid 80s, there was more all-stars per team in general because there were still 24 spots on the all-star team but like 3-7 less teams. If the NBA cut down to 23-27 teams, you would see much of the same thing.



Okay for 3 of them it wasn't just any HOFer. It was one of the most dominat players ever in the middle of arguably the most dominant peak ever. Way to downplay it.



:oldlol: What an obscure observation. Here's another one. In the past 20 years, Kobe is the only player in the top 20 all-time that has had an all-nba 1st team player on 3 of his championships (00-02 Shaq). Jordan only had one (96 Pippen). Duncan had none. Hakeem had none. Shaq only had one (02 Kobe). Wade only had one (06 Shaq). KG had none. And even if you go back to the 80s, it was only Kareem that had 3 (85, 87-88 Magic). Magic only had one (80 Kareem), Bird had none, and Dr. J and Moses each had one (each other in 83.)

Kobe has had plenty of help.

What an excellent post.

Of course, Kobe has had a lot of help. You don't win 5 titles with his actual on court production without it. Bryant just simply doesn't impact a game in the same way as a lot of the players he's being ranked ahead of. Over Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan? That's a joke. There is a reason any 'Greatest Players' list is comprised primarily of CENTERS & FORWARDS. They're inclined to exert a greater impact on a basketball game, and if they are cream of the crop, its not close. The exceptions are a freak 6'9" PG and MJ himself... Jordan could score at a higher volume than most bigs. The kicker is that his efficiency was often equal to or greater. The only Big with a similar ability to take over games and create looks at will down the stretch that I've seen was Hakeem Olajuwon, all the while anchoring the defense on the other end.

[jlauber]

I never said most of them were started by Chamberlain but he had plenty of bs coming out of his mouth as well, like him dunking his FT's in high school and still there's no proof or footage of that, or that he slept with 20 000 women (including your mom), or that he was a good FT-shooter in college, haha, that he could touch the top of the back board..

The many myths actually only ruins his legacy, no normal person will fall for it, no one and you ain't normal.. There is no way that he actually broke Johnny Kerr's toe just by dunking a ball on it, that's something unheard of and if that even occured it must have been a freak accident, not actually just a ball landing on his toe. If you would know any physics at all, you'd know that it's not possible that from a dunk, a ball to get that kind of speed and force to crush actual bones and lets be real, Shaq's had harder dunks and he actually broke backboards and even Shaq wouldn't been able to crush bones, haha..

Regarding the bench press, again it's only in quotes like everything else of Wilt's amazing myths..

The dunking from the FT-line is pure crap as well, he played in the NBA for 15 seasons and still no one ever saw him dunk from the FT-line. If he'd would have such an easy time dunking from the FT-line, even without a full running start, he'd sure as hell would have done it in the NBA. Running your mouth isn't enough.

And the backboard, yeah right, like everything else it's a quote and in that case many NBA players have touched the backboard but still it's never been recorded.....

And world class high jumper, what kind of BS is that? Winning in college doesn't make you world class, Wilt was not even anywhere close to the record to be called a world class high jumper, you idiot.

And again, Wilt neither was a world class volleyballplayer nor did he play against world class volleyball players. He played in a crappy league who only existed for 4 years where women and men played the game of volleyball on the same teams, and he only played for one year. Stop with the nonsense.

You know, you're the one that needs actual proof instead of crappy quotes, I'm just saying, if he did those things, prove it and don't "prove it" by posting qoutes. Quotes and articles are what built up these myths, there's no actual footage of Wilt doing any of this crap at all, NONE. Oh, lets guess, cameras never existed when Wilt did something great?

Don't be MAD, Jeff Lauber!


Another idiotic response in the many that you have posted.

One more time...


Oh, lets guess, cameras never existed when Wilt did something great?

Let's see... 271 games of 40+ points, and yet we do not have the footage of ONE of them.

You can kind find TONS of HOURS of many other "greats", and yet, much of the few MINUTES that we had of Wilt was forever lost when YouTube removed them.

Of course, when you challenged my take that Wilt had a good outside game...I posted a SEVEN MINUTE video which CLEARLY illustrated his excellent range. Not to mention that we also have a HOF COACH (who did NOR coach Chamberlain BTW) that confirmed just that, as well.

When you challenged my FACTUAL take on Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks just in the '72 WCF's alone, I not only brought up SEVERAL articles which in fact gave Wilt with FIFTEEN blocks (and in only THREE games of that series...which means that Wilt probably blocked 20+ of Kareem's shots), but I posted a video in which, in the first minute, Wilt is blocking TWO of Kareem's shots. The REALITY was, BTW, that Wilt faced Kareem in 28 H2H meetings, and based on the fact that we KNOW that he blocked at LEAST 15 of Kareem's shots in THREE games of the '72 WCF's...there is a very good possibility that Wilt probably blocked around a 100 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks in his career.

Once again, there was/is practically NO VIDEO footage of the STAGGERING achievements that Wilt accomplished in his career. And based on your moronic reply, I guess we don't know for certain if Wilt even scored 100 points in one game.

As for the other incredible feats...do we have footage of Shaq's bench press max? Ben Wallace?

[jlauber]

I never said most of them were started by Chamberlain but he had plenty of bs coming out of his mouth as well, like him dunking his FT's in high school and still there's no proof or footage of that, or that he slept with 20 000 women (including your mom), or that he was a good FT-shooter in college, haha, that he could touch the top of the back board..

The many myths actually only ruins his legacy, no normal person will fall for it, no one and you ain't normal.. There is no way that he actually broke Johnny Kerr's toe just by dunking a ball on it, that's something unheard of and if that even occured it must have been a freak accident, not actually just a ball landing on his toe. If you would know any physics at all, you'd know that it's not possible that from a dunk, a ball to get that kind of speed and force to crush actual bones and lets be real, Shaq's had harder dunks and he actually broke backboards and even Shaq wouldn't been able to crush bones, haha..

Regarding the bench press, again it's only in quotes like everything else of Wilt's amazing myths..

The dunking from the FT-line is pure crap as well, he played in the NBA for 15 seasons and still no one ever saw him dunk from the FT-line. If he'd would have such an easy time dunking from the FT-line, even without a full running start, he'd sure as hell would have done it in the NBA. Running your mouth isn't enough.

And the backboard, yeah right, like everything else it's a quote and in that case many NBA players have touched the backboard but still it's never been recorded.....

And world class high jumper, what kind of BS is that? Winning in college doesn't make you world class, Wilt was not even anywhere close to the record to be called a world class high jumper, you idiot.

And again, Wilt neither was a world class volleyballplayer nor did he play against world class volleyball players. He played in a crappy league who only existed for 4 years where women and men played the game of volleyball on the same teams, and he only played for one year. Stop with the nonsense.

You know, you're the one that needs actual proof instead of crappy quotes, I'm just saying, if he did those things, prove it and don't "prove it" by posting qoutes. Quotes and articles are what built up these myths, there's no actual footage of Wilt doing any of this crap at all, NONE. Oh, lets guess, cameras never existed when Wilt did something great?

Don't be MAD, Jeff Lauber!


Another idiotic response in the many that you have posted.

One more time...


Oh, lets guess, cameras never existed when Wilt did something great?

Let's see... 271 games of 40+ points, and yet we do not have the footage of ONE of them.

You can kind find TONS of HOURS of many other "greats", and yet, much of the few MINUTES that we had of Wilt was forever lost when YouTube removed them.

Of course, when you challenged my take that Wilt had a good outside game...I posted a SEVEN MINUTE video which CLEARLY illustrated his excellent range. Not to mention that we also have a HOF COACH (who did NOR coach Chamberlain BTW) that confirmed just that, as well.

When you challenged my FACTUAL take on Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks just in the '72 WCF's alone, I not only brought up SEVERAL articles which in fact gave Wilt with FIFTEEN blocks (and in only THREE games of that series...which means that Wilt probably blocked 20+ of Kareem's shots), but I posted a video in which, in the first minute, Wilt is blocking TWO of Kareem's shots. The REALITY was, BTW, that Wilt faced Kareem in 28 H2H meetings, and based on the fact that we KNOW that he blocked at LEAST 15 of Kareem's shots in THREE games of the '72 WCF's...there is a very good possibility that Wilt probably blocked around a 100 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks in his career.

Once again, there was/is practically NO VIDEO footage of the STAGGERING achievements that Wilt accomplished in his career. And based on your moronic reply, I guess we don't know for certain if Wilt even scored 100 points in one game.

As for the other incredible feats...do we have footage of Shaq's bench press max? Ben Wallace?

[Jacks3]

. Bryant just simply doesn't impact a game in the same way as a lot of the players he's being ranked ahead of
What are u talking about? He's never ranked ahead of Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan.

:facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

he's top 50 but no longer a top 50 when he was helping Dirk, career wise he's top 50 current J-Kidd is a tier 12-10 pg in the league. The rest of the Mavs are just old veteran guys with hunger and passion Dallas showed how it was to play team ball. Its was a joint effort.

Top 50 isn't based on how good players were in a particular season. If it was, then almost every superstar with multiple rings would have one without a top 50 player.

[Bring-Your-Js]

Another idiotic response in the many that you have posted.

One more time...



Let's see... 271 games of 40+ points, and yet we do not have the footage of ONE of them.

You can kind find TONS of HOURS of many other "greats", and yet, much of the few MINUTES that we had of Wilt was forever lost when YouTube removed them.

Of course, when you challenged my take that Wilt had a good outside game...I posted a SEVEN MINUTE video which CLEARLY illustrated his excellent range. Not to mention that we also have a HOF COACH (who did NOR coach Chamberlain BTW) that confirmed just that, as well.

When you challenged my FACTUAL take on Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks just in the '72 WCF's alone, I not only brought up SEVERAL articles which in fact gave Wilt with FIFTEEN blocks (and in only THREE games of that series...which means that Wilt probably blocked 20+ of Kareem's shots), but I posted a video in which, in the first minute, Wilt is blocking TWO of Kareem's shots. The REALITY was, BTW, that Wilt faced Kareem in 28 H2H meetings, and based on the fact that we KNOW that he blocked at LEAST 15 of Kareem's shots in THREE games of the '72 WCF's...there is a very good possibility that Wilt probably blocked around a 100 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks in his career.

Once again, there was/is practically NO VIDEO footage of the STAGGERING achievements that Wilt accomplished in his career. And based on your moronic reply, I guess we don't know for certain if Wilt even scored 100 points in one game.

As for the other incredible feats...do we have footage of Shaq's bench press max? Ben Wallace?

Why'd Wilt feel the need to talk so much shit about Olajuwon and Shaq? Insecurity much? Did he realize they'd merk him head to head? George Muresean? Those moves dont mean shit? Shook out your shoes, boy. :no:

[guy]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. You are projecting a 21/12 season for Pau Gasol even though his peak numbers as the top dog in Memphis were 20.8 ppg and 9.8 rebounds in 2006.

You are projecting 17 points and 11 rebounds for Odom when he was asked to take on a larger role in the offense for the Pre Gasol Lakers his peak numbers were 15.9 ppg and 9.8 rebounds.

Right, so crazy for me to think that Gasol could average a measley 2 more rpg and Odom could average 1 more ppg and 1 more rpg when they are better players now then they were 5 years ago.



You are projecting 18/12 numbers from a guy who misses half of the season every year with a knee injury

Did I not say "WHEN HEALTHY" and that saying he's not that consistent because of his injuries? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that he is very capable of putting up those numbers in any game, which makes him a huge threat. And thats a great luxury to have when they already have Kobe, Gasol, and Odom.



Lastly, you are hyping up the scoring abilities of probably the least efficient SF in the league.

He put up 17/5 the previous year, so whats ridiculous about it?




Kobe isn't compared to his contemporaries. He is compared to guys like Jordan, Bird and Magic. No amount of contraction would change the fact that Odom and Rice don't compare to the 2nd best teammates those three won titles with.

Any future success of the Heat will likely include 2 all star teammates for Wade and LeBron.

I'm not talking about Wade and Lebron so I don't know why you're bringing that up. Its hilarious that you bring up the 2nd best teammate when its clear as day that aside from Kareem in 1980, Kobe by far has the the BEST teammate out of all those guys in Shaq from 2000-02. So are 2nd best teammates now better more important then the 1st?

I brought up the all-star thing because the point is having 3 all-stars on a team back then is alot different then today. Its much harder to do in today's game cause making an all-star team in general is harder.



Shaq was awesome. So was Magic. So was Kareem. Somehow its only Kobe who is penalized for playing with an all time great when half of the top 15 players in the games history have played with eachother.


YOU were the one that tried to downplay Kobe's teammates by referring to Shaq as just a HOFer, as if him and someone like Dennis Rodman or Robert Parish are comparable to him just cause they are also HOFers. YOU were the one trying to prop up Kobe by saying that and downplay Jordan, Magic, and Bird since they did have more then one HOF teammate, ignoring the fact that Kobe clearly had the most dominating of them all.



So if the Heat would have won the title last year, Wade would have been a worse player in this stat? :oldlol:

That's how you know its stupid and doesn't measure anything.

LOL did you not get my point? Yes, its stupid. Its a ridiculous, obscure observation just like yours. That's my points. Actually, yours is even more stupid cause at least an all-nba player > all-defensive player. But its clearly stupid. You can come up with obscure observations for any of these players to make them look better or worse. Here's another one: Out of the top 10 players, only Kobe ever won a championship with the scoring champ as his teammate. See how stupid that is?

I'm not trying to sh*t on Kobe. But this claim that he hasn't had great teammates and hasn't been one of the most fortunate players ever is ridiculous.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

LOL did you not get my point? Yes, its stupid. Its a ridiculous, obscure observation just like yours. That's my points. Actually, yours is even more stupid cause at least an all-nba player > all-defensive player. But its clearly stupid. You can come up with obscure observations for any of these players to make them look better or worse. Here's another one: Out of the top 10 players, only Kobe ever won a championship with the scoring champ as his teammate. See how stupid that is?

I'm not trying to sh*t on Kobe. But this claim that he hasn't had great teammates and hasn't been one of the most fortunate players ever is ridiculous.

My observation is based on taking all of the teammates into effect. Not just one player. NBA basketball isn't played 2v2. When you look at the totality of the lineups, its amazing that Kobe has won as much as he has. Looking at all nba awards, all star awards, future HOFers and all defensive team awards aka pretty much every award that the league has used to recognize individual talent across the league Kobe has had below average talent around compared to other NBA legends. If you don't believe me name the NBA legends who have won multiple championships with less help...

[97 bulls]

My observation is based on taking all of the teammates into effect. Not just one player. NBA basketball isn't played 2v2. When you look at the totality of the lineups, its amazing that Kobe has won as much as he has. Looking at all nba awards, all star awards, future HOFers and all defensive team awards aka pretty much every award that the league has used to recognize individual talent across the league Kobe has had below average talent around compared to other NBA legends. If you don't believe me name the NBA legends who have won multiple championships with less help...
I tthink there is a huge point that your missing bro. You have to compare the teams according to the eras they played in. For instance, andrew bynum is obviously not on the level of the great centers of the past. But in this era, he's arguably top 3. Gasol is arguably top 7 as far as pf go. Odom is probably the best sixth man in the league. So the in this aspect, kobe has had plenty of help.

Let me ask you this question, why are the lakers always considered one of the top 2 teams in the league? Why are the laker fans always making threads abbout how the lakers are gonna win 70 games?

[keepinitreal]

This is getting rediculous; Kobe won two titles with Odom, Gasol and Ariza/Artest. Bynum was on one leg most of those runs, guy WON with less then Duncan and Dirk.

Parker, Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu, Terry, Kidd, Marion, Chandler,Barea...Lmao.

Kobe won with a three time all-star, think about that for a second.

:banana:

[jlauber]

The problem with the OP is that it doesn't take the level of competition into consideration. Those that claim that Hakeem's '94 run was on some mythical level need to realize that a) MJ did not play that season, and yet his Bulls went 55-27 without him, and narrowly lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's Rockets, and b) just who the hell did that Knick's team have? Ewing and then what?

By contrast, Barry's '75 run, with rookie Wilkes and a bunch of role players, in beating a loaded Bulls team, and then the 60-22 Bullets, with both a prime Unseld and Hayes, in a SWEEP, was an amazing feat.

[Jacks3]

Yeh, Bynum is so awesome with his incredible 7/6 average over the last 2 Laker Championships, and missing 25-30+ games every year. And what about Odom--11/10 on 51% TS. Wow. What a beast. And can't forget Artest. The worst offensive starting SF in the league in 2010.

All that to go along with one of the worst benches in the league, no shooters (lakers were 24th in 3PT%), and the worst starting PG in the league in Fisher.

WOW. Kobe's championship team is so stacked OMG.


:oldlol:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I tthink there is a huge point that your missing bro. You have to compare the teams according to the eras they played in. For instance, andrew bynum is obviously not on the level of the great centers of the past. But in this era, he's arguably top 3. Gasol is arguably top 7 as far as pf go. Odom is probably the best sixth man in the league. So the in this aspect, kobe has had plenty of help.

Let me ask you this question, why are the lakers always considered one of the top 2 teams in the league? Why are the laker fans always making threads abbout how the lakers are gonna win 70 games?

Please, go back and look at Andrew Bynum's numbers in the playoffs during those two title runs and come back and tell me with a straight face he was a top 3 center. Gasol is a good player, an all star. Jason Terry is the best 6th man in the league. Odom has never been an all star and never will be.

Because of Kobe :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

Yeh, Bynum is so awesome with his incredible 7/6 average over the last 2 Laker Championships, and missing 25-30+ games every year. And what about Odom--11/10 on 51% TS. Wow. What a beast. And can't forget Artest. The worst offensive starting SF in the league in 2010.

All that to go along with one of the worst benches in the league, no shooters (lakers were 24th in 3PT%), and the worst starting PG in the league in Fisher.

WOW. Kobe's championship team is so stacked OMG.


:oldlol:
How many centers would you take over bynum right now? How many 6th men are better than odom? How bout pfs over gasol? There's only 5 positions in basketball. The lakers are arguably top 3 in 3 of those postion.

[97 bulls]

Please, go back and look at Andrew Bynum's numbers in the playoffs during those two title runs and come back and tell me with a straight face he was a top 3 center. Gasol is a good player, an all star. Jason Terry is the best 6th man in the league. Odom has never been an all star and never will be.

Because of Kobe :confusedshrug:
How many centers would you take over him now? Aand even if you feel terry is the best 6th man, odom iis definately second.

[The Iron Fist]

Yeh, Bynum is so awesome with his incredible 7/6 average over the last 2 Laker Championships, and missing 25-30+ games every year. And what about Odom--11/10 on 51% TS. Wow. What a beast. And can't forget Artest. The worst offensive starting SF in the league in 2010.

All that to go along with one of the worst benches in the league, no shooters (lakers were 24th in 3PT%), and the worst starting PG in the league in Fisher.

WOW. Kobe's championship team is so stacked OMG.


:oldlol:


Its stacked when you compare it to a team with KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Perkins, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Bird, McHale, Parrish, Johnson, Ainge, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Paxson, Kukoc, etc.


Kobe played on the most stacked team in league history so it only affects him when you want to talk about top ten players.

Duh. Everyone knows Kobe played with only all stars on his team. Thats a fact.

[Jacks3]

How many centers would you take over bynum right now?
Again, 7/6 over the Lakers championship runs. Misses 25-30 games every year. There are plenty of centers who could replace Bynum and the Lakers wouldn't miss a beat. 7/6 lol. You realize that the Lakers had a BETTER win pct% without Bynum than with him from 08-10 right? Dude was literally a non-factor for the Lakers in the 2009 playoff run (6 pts/4rebs) and only slightly better in 2010. Please.

How many 6th men are better than odom? How bout pfs over gasol?
11/10/51% TS in the 2010 playoff run. That's not even close to anything special. Again, there are PLENTY of players who can get that.

The Lakers won because they had one of the best players ever putting up monster playoff runs, a very good #2 option in Pau, and then solid role-players.

They're not even close to this super-stacked team everyone imagines they are. Just another myth by the Kobe-haters to try and discredit him.

:oldlol:

[Jacks3]

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Perkins, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Bird, McHale, Parrish, Johnson, Ainge, etc.

Its stacked when you compare it to a team with Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Paxson, Kukoc, etc.


Kobe played on the most stacked team in league history so it only affects him when you want to talk about top ten players.

Duh. Everyone knows Kobe played with only all stars on his team. Thats a fact.
:oldlol:

It's incredible how far people will go to discredit Bryant.

Literally everything.

Puts up 35.4 PPG for entire season--"Anyone can do that if they take enough shots"
Wins three straight rings from 00-02--"Replace him with any decent SG and they'd still win"
Wins back-to-back as the man--"He only won because he had a super-stacked team"
Makes All-D--"He only gets it because of reputation"
Wins MVP--"It was a life-time achievement award."
Etc, Etc

Pathetic.

[Bring-Your-Js]

:oldlol:

It's incredible how far people will go to discredit Bryant.

Literally everything.

Puts up 35.4 PPG for entire season--"Anyone can do that if they take enough shots"
Wins three straight rings from 00-02--"Replace him with any decent SG and they'd still win"
Wins back-to-back as the man--"He only won because he had a super-stacked team"
Makes All-D--"He only gets it because of reputation"
Wins MVP--"It was a life-time achievement award."
Etc, Etc

Pathetic.

Kobe's

* Top 5 Skills
* Top 10 Career
* Top 15 Peak

Cool? :pimp:

[millwad]

The problem with the OP is that it doesn't take the level of competition into consideration. Those that claim that Hakeem's '94 run was on some mythical level need to realize that a) MJ did not play that season, and yet his Bulls went 55-27 without him, and narrowly lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's Rockets, and b) just who the hell did that Knick's team have? Ewing and then what?

By contrast, Barry's '75 run, with rookie Wilkes and a bunch of role players, in beating a loaded Bulls team, and then the 60-22 Bullets, with both a prime Unseld and Hayes, in a SWEEP, was an amazing feat.

You're an idiot, that's the only problem in all this.
And you really prove it by comparing Barry's '75 runt to Hakeem's '94 run. Rockets would have made the finals anyway and you can't predict something that didn't happen and we all know that Rockets always matched up really good against the Bulls and in fact, Hakeem Olajuwon is the only NBA superstar without a loosing record vs MJ and the Bulls.

Enough about Michael now, during that championshiprun he faced greater players than mr Barry did when you now wanna argue over that. In first round he faced Spencer Haywood and the one-time all-star Fred Brown, neither of them belonging in the top 50 and a Archie Clark out of his prime...

And that "loaded" Bulls team won 47 games that season and just by looking at their roster you'd think they were great but most of them already were on downfall and not in their prime. Nate Thurmond was old and not even close to his prime, Bob Love wasn't even an all-star that year.. In fact, that "stacked" team didn't have any players at all on that years all-star team..

In the finals they beat the Bullets which was a great accomplishment but lets get real, talking about players both team went past, the Rockets obviously faced better players and teams. And even though Barry only went through 3 series, not for like they did it years after that, he didn't face that kind of competition your trying to make it sound like.

Prime Hayes and Prime Unseld ain't nothing compared to Prime Drexler, Prime Barkley, Prime Kevin Johnson, Prime Malone, Prime Stockton, Prime Ewing.

Don't be butthurt that I didn't include your loverboy, Thurmond, he was no where close to his prime and was a complete roleplayer, if even that..

In fact, Hakeem faced 6 players on the 50 greatest players list, and all of them were in their prime. And Drexler is top 10 among SG's by all-time, Barkley is top 3 all-time among PF's, Malone is top 3 all-time amongs PF's, Stockton is top 4 among PG's all-time and Prime Ewing is top 10 among centers. Lets face it, Hakeem faced much more talented players and better teams as well. The only one who is a top 10 on his own position that Barry faced was Hayes and still no one ranks him over neither Barkley or Malone.

[97 bulls]

Again, 7/6 over the Lakers championship runs. Misses 25-30 games every year. There are plenty of centers who could replace Bynum and the Lakers wouldn't miss a beat. 7/6 lol. You realize that the Lakers had a BETTER win pct% without Bynum than with him from 08-10 right? Dude was literally a non-factor for the Lakers in the 2009 playoff run (6 pts/4rebs) and only slightly better in 2010. Please.

11/10/51% TS in the 2010 playoff run. That's not even close to anything special. Again, there are PLENTY of players who can get that.

The Lakers won because they had one of the best players ever putting up monster playoff runs, a very good #2 option in Pau, and then solid role-players.

They're not even close to this super-stacked team everyone imagines they are. Just another myth by the Kobe-haters to try and discredit him.

:oldlol:
Lol who would you take over bynum at center? Who would you take over gasol at pf? How many 6th men are better than odom?

I acknowledged bynum 7/6. Which really isn't bad for todays centers. Id even agree that when compared to other championship teams, the lakers aren't as stacked. But in this league, they are.

And please understand this. I don't like to go solely off stats to determine how talented players are. Especially in the playoffs. Simply because playoffs are about matchups. With all the talent the lakers have, why would you try to go to bynum in the post when dwight howard is defending him? Or even perkins. Especially when bynum is injured. Sometimes, just his presence on the floor means teams must account for him. And its really unfair to call him injury prone. If I remember correct, both of his injuries were due to guys roling on his knees. I remember kobe for sure.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Who would you take over Bynum now is an entirely different question than how much help did Bynum contribute in earning two championships.

[97 bulls]

Who would you take over Bynum now is an entirely different question than how much help did Bynum contribute in earning two championships.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I see it as maybe him just having a bad series. Doesn't mean he's not one of the better centers in the league. And even still 7/6 in this league of centers isn't bad. I just don't see how you guys (laker fans) can say the lakers can threaten 70, but then say they aren't stacked. Even you guys do feel kobes that good.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I see it as maybe him just having a bad series. Doesn't mean he's not one of the better centers in the league. And even still 7/6 in this league of centers isn't bad. I just don't see how you guys (laker fans) can say the lakers can threaten 70, but then say they aren't stacked. Even you guys do feel kobes that good.

Those are not his numbers from a series. Those are his numbers for the entire playoffs over two seasons. He was playing with an injury. An injured Bynum isn't one of the best centers in the league. Not even close.

Projecting future success has nothing to do with accurately describing past performance. I don't even know where you are getting the idea that Lakers fans are collectively penciling in 70+ wins in the future but even if its true its completely irrelevant.

[97 bulls]

Those are not his numbers from a series. Those are his numbers for the entire playoffs over two seasons. He was playing with an injury. An injured Bynum isn't one of the best centers in the league. Not even close.

Projecting future success has nothing to do with accurately describing past performance. I don't even know where you are getting the idea that Lakers fans are collectively penciling in 70+ wins in the future but even if its true its completely irrelevant.
I'm not talking about future success. I'm talking about what was being said since the lakers aquired pau gasol for a sneeze. Why have the lakers been the favorite over the last few years? They have had the most talent. You can't dismiss that cuz bynum got hurt.

And what you still fail to acknowledge is that when compared to their peers, odom, bynum and gasol match up very well. Do you agree or not?

[DMAVS41]

Who would you take over Bynum now is an entirely different question than how much help did Bynum contribute in earning two championships.

It is. However, you are under-rating Bynum's impact in 2010 especially. He played 24.4 minutes per game and put up 9 points and 7 boards and was a key presence defensively.

What I find hilarious from certain Lakers/Kobe fans is how much you hate on Bynum, but then turn around and act like Tyson Chandler was the 2nd coming this year on the Mavs.

Chandler put up 8 points and 9 boards this year in the playoffs.

If you are talking more about 09 then I agree to an extent. Although the Lakers really didn't need him that much in 09 because even without him they had most stacked team in the league.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not talking about future success. I'm talking about what was being said since the lakers aquired pau gasol for a sneeze. Why have the lakers been the favorite over the last few years? They have had the most talent. You can't dismiss that cuz bynum got hurt.

And what you still fail to acknowledge is that when compared to their peers, odom, bynum and gasol match up very well. Do you agree or not?

Because they went to the finals in Year 1 and the Lakers are likely the most popular team in the nation? You are asking a psychology question. Why does any fan overrate its chances of success? Its part of being a fan.

Sure they match up well in the current NBA. But Artest and Fisher don't and thats 50% of Kobe's fellow starters. More importantly its not a stacked team historically or compared to the Celtics and Heat.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It is. However, you are under-rating Bynum's impact in 2010 especially. He played 24.4 minutes per game and put up 9 points and 7 boards and was a key presence defensively.

What I find hilarious from certain Lakers/Kobe fans is how much you hate on Bynum, but then turn around and act like Tyson Chandler was the 2nd coming this year on the Mavs.

Chandler put up 8 points and 9 boards this year in the playoffs.

If you are talking more about 09 then I agree to an extent. Although the Lakers really didn't need him that much in 09 because even without him they had most stacked team in the league.

Its not hating on Bynum to say when hes injured hes not one of the best centers in the league. :facepalm

http://bkref.com/tiny/063Jh

The only thing Bynum had over Chandler in the playoffs was usage %. Chandler was more efficient, the better rebounder and had the lower defensive rating. Even if we call it a wash, Chandler by virtue of playing 32.4 mins to Bynum 24.4 mins a game was 33% more impactful.

More importantly nobody goes around pretending that the Mavericks were the most stacked team in the league.

[brownmamba00]

Lol who would you take over bynum at center? Who would you take over gasol at pf? How many 6th men are better than odom?


Like in right now? Id take Dirk, Amare, LA, Zach and Blake over him.
That makes him a top 5-6 PF which is not really THAT special for a Championship caliber team's 2nd option.If we're talking '09 he's probably top 3 and in '10 top 5
And the Lakers had a terrible bench in those playoff runs. Like Jack mentioned, LO's 11/9 on 49% is above average. And are we gonna act he wasn't the L's most inconsistent players:rolleyes:



I acknowledged bynum 7/6. Which really isn't bad for todays centers. Id even agree that when compared to other championship teams, the lakers aren't as stacked. But in this league, they are.

How is this even being discussed? Drew was a total non-factor in those titles. He showed heart tho in '10s finals but doesn't change the fact he was a non-factor.

Fish was really clutch altho he sucked most of the time and was a blackhole on D and O.


The truth:pimp: : Kobe won with a solid 2nd option , a bunch of role players who were blackholes on D or O and with a very weak bench.

[DMAVS41]

Its not hating on Bynum to say when hes injured hes not one of the best centers in the league. :facepalm

http://bkref.com/tiny/063Jh

The only thing Bynum had over Chandler in the playoffs was usage %. Chandler was more efficient, the better rebounder and had the lower defensive rating. Even if we call it a wash, Chandler by virtue of playing 32.4 mins to Bynum 24.4 mins a game was 33% more impactful.

More importantly nobody goes around pretending that the Mavericks were the most stacked team in the league.

I didn't say Bynum was better than Chandler. I'm merely pointing out that in 2010 Bynum was better than you seem to be giving him credit for.

You also have to look at competition level. In 2009 especially, the Lakers really didn't beat many good teams. The Nuggets and Magic were ok, but the Lakers were better than both teams quite easily. A big part of that was obviously that Kobe was the best player in each series.

However, its not like they had to beat the 08 Celtics or something. Bynum just wasn't needed to be 100%. He still contributed and still made a positive impact.

What you are failing to understand is that even a hobbled Bynum still is very valuable because of the state of centers around the league. Front line play is often paramount to winning titles. Gasol, Odom, and even an injured Bynum constitute the best front line in basketball those 2 championship years.

As far as "the most stacked team in the league"

What teams were more stacked than the Lakers in 09 and 10?

[97 bulls]

Because they went to the finals in Year 1 and the Lakers are likely the most popular team in the nation? You are asking a psychology question. Why does any fan overrate its chances of success? Its part of being a fan.

Sure they match up well in the current NBA. But Artest and Fisher don't and thats 50% of Kobe's fellow starters. More importantly its not a stacked team historically or compared to the Celtics and Heat.
Artest was bad this year. But he did an amzing job on guys like durant last year. And ariza did the same in 09. Fisher is one of the worse starting guards in the league. And I disagree as far as the heat and celtics. The celtics put together an amzing team if were talking about back in 04. But this year? No. They were flat out old. The heat were extremely top heavy sure. But what did they have past their big 3? Anthony is just as bad a center as fisher, miller and haslem were just as injured as bynum. But what was left? Juwan howard? Bibby? Dampier? I forgot chalmers. I think he's solid.

But I agree that historically, the lakers aren't. But they're not playing those historic teams. And I wouldn't say the lakers aren't stacked just because they don't have another top 50 player. Like I said in a previous post, relative to this era, the lakers are stacked. They are strongest at the position where most other teams are the weakest.

And I'm using the laker fans, cuz I'm sure if I go back and look, guys like jacks were making thread prdicting that the lakers could win 70. Now he's saying the lakers aren't stacked. And please stop running behind the media. Its a lame excuse.


See how I've addressed your points? Now talent-wise, where do bynum, gasol, and odom rank as far as their respective positions in this league today?

[EricForman]

it is disgusting how Kobe fans are downplaying Kobe's cast. They keep mentioning Bynum's numbers yet fail to mention his impact on defense--like how the Lakers played their best ball last season when Bynum was on a roll.

Again--anyone with eyes could see that the biggest problem for the 2010 Suns and Celtics when playing Lakers during the playoffs were the inside presence and the size and length of the Laker's front court.

None of that matters because clowns like Yao Ming's Foot and Jacks3 think it's all about the PPG.

Never mind that Pau is arguably the second or third most complete/skilled offensive big man in the game (that includes PASSING abilities too), or that Odom is VERY, VERY GOOD for a 3rd or 4th banana.

These clowns want to downplay the cast. Downplay Pau into "merely an all star" as if he was a Mo Williams, Peja Stoijakovich type of all star player. Downplay Bynum into just his numbers, downplay Odom into a role player.

You guys are a bunch of idiots.

[97 bulls]

Like in right now? Id take Dirk, Amare, LA, Zach and Blake over him.
That makes him a top 5-6 PF which is not really THAT special for a Championship caliber team's 2nd option.If we're talking '09 he's probably top 3 and in '10 top 5
And the Lakers had a terrible bench in those playoff runs. Like Jack mentioned, LO's 11/9 on 49% is above average. And are we gonna act he wasn't the L's most inconsistent players:rolleyes:



How is this even being discussed? Drew was a total non-factor in those titles. He showed heart tho in '10s finals but doesn't change the fact he was a non-factor.

Fish was really clutch altho he sucked most of the time and was a blackhole on D and O.


The truth:pimp: : Kobe won with a solid 2nd option , a bunch of role players who were blackholes on D or O and with a very weak bench.
So according to you, the lakers had the 3rd best pf in the league during their championship runs. How bout odom and bynum? Where do they rank when compared to their peers at center and sixthman?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I didn't say Bynum was better than Chandler. I'm merely pointing out that in 2010 Bynum was better than you seem to be giving him credit for.

You also have to look at competition level. In 2009 especially, the Lakers really didn't beat many good teams. The Nuggets and Magic were ok, but the Lakers were better than both teams quite easily. A big part of that was obviously that Kobe was the best player in each series.

However, its not like they had to beat the 08 Celtics or something. Bynum just wasn't needed to be 100%. He still contributed and still made a positive impact.

What you are failing to understand is that even a hobbled Bynum still is very valuable because of the state of centers around the league. Front line play is often paramount to winning titles. Gasol, Odom, and even an injured Bynum constitute the best front line in basketball those 2 championship years.

As far as "the most stacked team in the league"

What teams were more stacked than the Lakers in 09 and 10?

You are going to have to redefine the words and good and ok for me because in my world a 59 win team is better than "ok". I would bet the winning % of Lakers playoff opponents in 09 is historically above average. for title winning teams and really that pretty much applies for every Kobe title team. The West has been incredibly stacked compared to the East at around the same time the Lakers started winning championships.

By selectively isolating the frontcourt it conveniently ignores the fact that the Lakers trotted out a couple of duds at PG and SF. All I'm saying is look at the entire roster to determine teammate strength don't just stop paying attention after Shaq from 00-02 and Odom from 08-10.

I don't think any team was stacked to the degree that winning a championship by one of its stars should be "downgraded", but clearly the Celtics were more stacked they just lack a player as good as Kobe.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

See how I've addressed your points? Now talent-wise, where do bynum, gasol, and odom rank as far as their respective positions in this league today?

I honestly don't know. Gasol and Odom were unexpectedly bad in the playoffs last season and Bynum is obviously unpredictable.

[rmt]

Some laker fans would like to pretend that LA doesn't have the most talented 1-6 players in the league which includes 2 seven foot post players (both polished offensively and 1 - a huge defensive presence) and the most versatile 6th man. They like to think that Kobe has put a bunch of has-beens or inexperienced players on his back and carried them to championships. When it's Fisher making a huge 3pter, Gasol grabbing an important rebound and Artest being MVP of game 7 that won the last ring.

"Ron Artest was the most valuable player tonight," Phil Jackson said. "He brought life to our team."

http://www.webcitation.org/5wfrwRtjY

"... the more I tried to push, the more it kept getting away from me.

[chazzy]

Bynum's ability to score really fell off after his injuries prior to the playoffs and his main contributions were his defense/rebounding, which was still valuable despite the low minutes he played - that was really evident in the one finals game he could barely play in when Big Baby feasted inside. But he simply wasn't mobile and became a liability at times because of how much his knee affected him, fluctuating game by game and getting it drained multiple times throughout the playoffs. He wasn't close to the level he was during the regular season or this year.

I think 2000 Kobe is equivalent to Brandon Jennings
Hard to take you seriously when your opposing agenda is obvious as well :lol

[97 bulls]

it is disgusting how Kobe fans are downplaying Kobe's cast. They keep mentioning Bynum's numbers yet fail to mention his impact on defense--like how the Lakers played their best ball last season when Bynum was on a roll.

Again--anyone with eyes could see that the biggest problem for the 2010 Suns and Celtics when playing Lakers during the playoffs were the inside presence and the size and length of the Laker's front court.

None of that matters because clowns like Yao Ming's Foot and Jacks3 think it's all about the PPG.

Never mind that Pau is arguably the second or third most complete/skilled offensive big man in the game (that includes PASSING abilities too), or that Odom is VERY, VERY GOOD for a 3rd or 4th banana.

These clowns want to downplay the cast. Downplay Pau into "merely an all star" as if he was a Mo Williams, Peja Stoijakovich type of all star player. Downplay Bynum into just his numbers, downplay Odom into a role player.

You guys are a bunch of idiots.
This is all I've been saying. I don't really understand where or why this type of talk has started. Degrading the team to prop up the best player. Great post bro.

[rmt]

You are going to have to redefine the words and good and ok for me because in my world a 59 win team is better than "ok". I would bet the winning % of Lakers playoff opponents in 09 is historically above average. for title winning teams and really that pretty much applies for every Kobe title team. The West has been incredibly stacked compared to the East at around the same time the Lakers started winning championships.

By selectively isolating the frontcourt it conveniently ignores the fact that the Lakers trotted out a couple of duds at PG and SF. All I'm saying is look at the entire roster to determine teammate strength don't just stop paying attention after Shaq from 00-02 and Odom from 08-10.

I don't think any team was stacked to the degree that winning a championship by one of its stars should be "downgraded", but clearly the Celtics were more stacked they just lack a player as good as Kobe.

Those duds at PG and SF sure bailed out Kobe's you-know-what in game 7. Don't pretend like that dud at PG isn't one of the most clutch role players ever (and hit that huge 3) or that dud at SF didn't play the game of his life to help win that last ring.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Those duds at PG and SF sure bailed out Kobe's you-know-what in game 7. Don't pretend like that dud at PG isn't one of the most clutch role players ever (and hit that huge 3) or that dud at SF didn't play the game of his life to help win that last ring.

Let's clarify some things

Derek Fisher does have some clutch moments and one can't deny that he has come through big in some big situations, but with that being said, people act like him being good for 1-5 minutes of a game cancels out him being bad the rest of the time. He's underrated by some and vastly overrated by others. I guarantee NO ONE in the league would trade their starting PG for Derek Fisher.

As far as Artest, he did play a good game as far as scoring points goes, but if we're going to go by the usual logic of this board even he didn't have an awesome game. He shot 7-18. Not horrible, but it isn't like he just played the greatest game ever. And he played well one game, what about the rest of the series? 1 or 2 games/moments don't override what goes on the majority of the time. I bet no one in the league would trade their starting SF for Artest either

The truth is the Lakers have strengths in areas that other teams lack, but have glaring weaknesses that other teams lack. They have size up front with Bynum (when he's actually on 2 legs), Gasol and Odom. But their backcourt is terrible outside of Kobe, and their bench is a mess. They have no go to perimeter player outside of Kobe and no real knock down shooters. Blake was supposed to be that, but you saw how horrible he was. In fact, since Kobe has been a starter he's NEVER played with another all-star caliber perimeter player. The best one he had was an over the hill Payton and maybe Glen Rice.

So you can say they are "stacked" in some way but other teams are "stacked" in other ways. Miami with their perimeter tandem of LeBron and Wade, OKC with their perimeter players, Dallas with good but not great role players at every position, etc.

[WeGetRing2012]

Rick Barry (1975)
Isiah Thomas (1989 & 1990)
Tim Duncan (2005 & 2007)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Drik Nowitzki (2011)
Kevin Garnett (2008)
Bob Pettit (1958)
Dolph Schayes (1955)
Bill Walton (1977)
Wilt Chamberlain (1967...but I think Greer and Cunningham are top 50 or very very close)
:wtf:

[WeGetRing2012]

The question was who won without a top 50 player all-time. The arguement can be made for Kobe in 2009 and 2010. Unless you think Gasol or Odom are top 50 all time. No one is downplaying the cast its just facts. Granted that Kobe also won with the GREATEST coach of all time. But you Kobe haters need to stop acting like Kobe hasnt earned anything in his career.

[WeGetRing2012]

Those duds at PG and SF sure bailed out Kobe's you-know-what in game 7. Don't pretend like that dud at PG isn't one of the most clutch role players ever (and hit that huge 3) or that dud at SF didn't play the game of his life to help win that last ring.

There wouldnt have been a Finals or game 7 without Kobe. Fact.

[rmt]

Let's clarify some things

Derek Fisher does have some clutch moments and one can't deny that he has come through big in some big situations, but with that being said, people act like him being good for 1-5 minutes of a game cancels out him being bad the rest of the time. He's underrated by some and vastly overrated by others. I guarantee NO ONE in the league would trade their starting PG for Derek Fisher.

As far as Artest, he did play a good game as far as scoring points goes, but if we're going to go by the usual logic of this board even he didn't have an awesome game. He shot 7-18. Not horrible, but it isn't like he just played the greatest game ever. And he played well one game, what about the rest of the series? 1 or 2 games/moments don't override what goes on the majority of the time. I bet no one in the league would trade their starting SF for Artest either

Artest was good enough for Phil Jackson call him the MVP of the game (see above quote). When I finished watching that game, I thought Artest played a helluva game on both sides of the court and Kobe got bailed out by his team mates.

You'd lose that bet because I'd trade that black hole that is Richard Jefferson for Artest in a second. At least Artest can defend.


The truth is the Lakers have strengths in areas that other teams lack, but have glaring weaknesses that other teams lack. They have size up front with Bynum (when he's actually on 2 legs), Gasol and Odom. But their backcourt is terrible outside of Kobe, and their bench is a mess. They have no go to perimeter player outside of Kobe and no real knock down shooters. Blake was supposed to be that, but you saw how horrible he was. In fact, since Kobe has been a starter he's NEVER played with another all-star caliber perimeter player. The best one he had was an over the hill Payton and maybe Glen Rice.

So you can say they are "stacked" in some way but other teams are "stacked" in other ways. Miami with their perimeter tandem of LeBron and Wade, OKC with their perimeter players, Dallas with good but not great role players at every position, etc.

What, you want Kobe and an all-star caliber perimeter player plus having Shaq or Gasol/Bynum/Odom up front? Talk about greedy. Glen Rice and Payton - what do you call a 38 year old Kidd?

What some of you LA fans are missing is that in basketball, scoring and defense of the paint is the most important factor in winning and best area to be "stacked" in. Having the MDE, top 6-8 GOAT Shaq or Gasol/Bynum/Odom tandem is an advantage that all teams would gladly give their eye-teeth for.


There wouldnt have been a Finals or game 7 without Kobe. Fact.

Without Artest's performance in that all-or-nothing, series-deciding game 7, Kobe wouldn't have 5 rings. Fact.

[guy]

My observation is based on taking all of the teammates into effect. Not just one player. NBA basketball isn't played 2v2. When you look at the totality of the lineups, its amazing that Kobe has won as much as he has. Looking at all nba awards, all star awards, future HOFers and all defensive team awards aka pretty much every award that the league has used to recognize individual talent across the league Kobe has had below average talent around compared to other NBA legends. If you don't believe me name the NBA legends who have won multiple championships with less help...

Who's saying its only 2v2? It hasn't just been Kobe+Shaq or Kobe+Gasol plus a bunch of scrubs. They've had some of the greatest role players ever that have stepped up big when it mattered.

Kobe has had an all-nba player, all-star, and future HOFer in every championship. This Laker team won a championship against a team with 3-4 future HOFers while Kobe played like sh*t. How in the world can you say he doesnt' have a great team when that happens?

I'd say in the past 30 years, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq, have won titles DEPENDING ON THE YEAR with less then comparable help to Kobe's in any of his championships .

[brownmamba00]

^^^

The Gasol/Odom/Bynum is not as good as you make it to be.
Bynum was a non-factor in LA's Championship runs. Odom was average.

Gasol was beastin in '09 tho but disappeared in the '08 finals and he was stinkin it up but Kobe covered his ass in every single game back in the '10 finals.

18 points on 46% shooting and he was beyond horrible in Boston.

[DMAVS41]

You are going to have to redefine the words and good and ok for me because in my world a 59 win team is better than "ok". I would bet the winning % of Lakers playoff opponents in 09 is historically above average. for title winning teams and really that pretty much applies for every Kobe title team. The West has been incredibly stacked compared to the East at around the same time the Lakers started winning championships.

By selectively isolating the frontcourt it conveniently ignores the fact that the Lakers trotted out a couple of duds at PG and SF. All I'm saying is look at the entire roster to determine teammate strength don't just stop paying attention after Shaq from 00-02 and Odom from 08-10.

I don't think any team was stacked to the degree that winning a championship by one of its stars should be "downgraded", but clearly the Celtics were more stacked they just lack a player as good as Kobe.


Its a simple question. What elite player (top 5 in the league) had a better roster than Kobe in 09 or 10? That is all I'm asking. You act like the 09 Lakers were playing the 86 Celtics. Is about all relative to the league.

I dont' think any other elite player had close to as good of a roster as Kobe did in 09 or 10. Therefore they were stacked.

Still waiting your response.

[eliteballer]

Bynum was virtually a nonfactor in the Lakers last two title runs and certainly not anything more than a good roleplayer due to his injuries...fact.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Some laker fans would like to pretend that LA doesn't have the most talented 1-6 players in the league

Why is it that "stacked" = top two for Kobe/Shaq yet now "stacked" = top 6?

Best 2nd best player: Heat (Wade or LeBron over Pau)
Best 3rd best player: Heat, Celtics or Spurs (Bosh, Rondo or Parker over Odom)
Best 4th best player: :confusedshrug: Bynum vs Allen vs Blair vs Harden vs Deng
Best 5th- or 6th best player: Kidd, Butler or Barea > Artest, Fisher, Barnes

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Its a simple question. What elite player (top 5 in the league) had a better roster than Kobe in 09 or 10? That is all I'm asking. You act like the 09 Lakers were playing the 86 Celtics. Is about all relative to the league.

I dont' think any other elite player had close to as good of a roster as Kobe did in 09 or 10. Therefore they were stacked.

Still waiting your response.

Stacked doesn't mean among the subset of the top 5 players in the league the team with the most talent. You are only comparing the Lakers with only at most 4 other teams and ignoring the entire history of the NBA.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Artest was good enough for Phil Jackson call him the MVP of the game (see above quote). When I finished watching that game, I thought Artest played a helluva game on both sides of the court and Kobe got bailed out by his team mates.

You'd lose that bet because I'd trade that black hole that is Richard Jefferson for Artest in a second. At least Artest can defend.

I didn't say he didn't play well, I'm saying that people act like he played tremendous the entire series. He did have a good game, but 1 game doesn't make up for an entire series. And RJ for Artest is debatable I'll give you that. But you would be trading offense for defense effectively. Early in the season RJ was at least hitting 3's very well, much better than Artest.

And let's not act like other guys haven't had teammates step up at key moments to help win. Every star has had bad games and still won a series. It is a team game after all.




What, you want Kobe and an all-star caliber perimeter player plus having Shaq or Gasol/Bynum/Odom up front? Talk about greedy. Glen Rice and Payton - what do you call a 38 year old Kidd?

What some of you LA fans are missing is that in basketball, scoring and defense of the paint is the most important factor in winning and best area to be "stacked" in. Having the MDE, top 6-8 GOAT Shaq or Gasol/Bynum/Odom tandem is an advantage that all teams would gladly give their eye-teeth for.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when people say that the Lakers are "stacked" they overlook the huge deficits in the team. Like I said, what the Lakers have, other teams lack and vice versa. Lakers have low post scoring that the Heat lack (even though if he got more touches on the low right block Bosh would be just as deadly as Gasol if not more), but the Lakers lack the perimeter threat and shooters the Heat have.

I didn't say Kidd is great, but he is a better defender and floor general than Fisher. I would definitely take Barea over Fisher or Blake as well. At least he can create opportunities and he can hit the 3. Even though he didn't play, I would take Roddy over either one of them as well.

You can win without having a dominant front court presence. Everyone on here said that if LeBron would have played even half as well as he did in the ECF Miami would have destroyed Dallas. It's the same reason why Jordan's Bulls were able to win without a low post presence. They had 2 of the best perimeter players in the game on one team.

The only reason the Lakers have stuck to this formula is because of Phil's influence. The triangle needs a capable big man that can pass. That's why they got Gasol. But they could just as easily be a powerhouse if instead of Gasol or Bynum they had a star guard that could create his own shot on the perimeter.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Who's saying its only 2v2? It hasn't just been Kobe+Shaq or Kobe+Gasol plus a bunch of scrubs. They've had some of the greatest role players ever that have stepped up big when it mattered.

Kobe has had an all-nba player, all-star, and future HOFer in every championship. This Laker team won a championship against a team with 3-4 future HOFers while Kobe played like sh*t. How in the world can you say he doesnt' have a great team when that happens?

I'd say in the past 30 years, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq, have won titles DEPENDING ON THE YEAR with less then comparable help to Kobe's in any of his championships .

There is nothing uniquely great about the Lakers role players in championship seasons that couldn't be reproduced from the role players of any other playoff team. You have to be kidding.

Great Defense that's how. :confusedshrug:

The difference is nobody claims Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan or Shaq's teams were stacked in an effort to downplay his accomplishments.

[97 bulls]

The question was who won without a top 50 player all-time. The arguement can be made for Kobe in 2009 and 2010. Unless you think Gasol or Odom are top 50 all time. No one is downplaying the cast its just facts. Granted that Kobe also won with the GREATEST coach of all time. But you Kobe haters need to stop acting like Kobe hasnt earned anything in his career.
I for one understand the question. But I. Can also read between the lines. There is the implication that kobe bryants teammates aren't that good. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Injuries or not they won. Twice. And bynum played a huge role during their two championships. Just his presence alone helps. And I'm not gonna sit here and knock a guy for playing hurt. Its silly.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

I for one understand the question. But I. Can also read between the lines. There is the implication that kobe bryants teammates aren't that good. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Injuries or not they won. Twice. And bynum played a huge role during their two championships. Just his presence alone helps. And I'm not gonna sit here and knock a guy for playing hurt. Its silly.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that. What people are arguing against is the notion that Kobe has somehow had the greatest teams in history when that is very far from the truth. Teams have to be good if they make 3 straight finals and win 2 back to back titles.

People pointing out the flaws in the Lakers' team is a response to those trying to boost Kobe's teammates in an effort to spew the age old "Kobe gets carried by Shaq/Gasol/Bynum/Artest/Odom/Fisher/etc when that is a fantasy as well. Idk how having 3 straight playoff runs of 29/5/5+ is getting carried. Of course Gasol, Bynum, Odom, etc contribute to the Lakers success. That's common sense. But to act as if they have a bigger impact than Kobe in winning titles is absurd.

[97 bulls]

The question was who won without a top 50 player all-time. The arguement can be made for Kobe in 2009 and 2010. Unless you think Gasol or Odom are top 50 all time. No one is downplaying the cast its just facts. Granted that Kobe also won with the GREATEST coach of all time. But you Kobe haters need to stop acting like Kobe hasnt earned anything in his career.
I for one understand the question. But I. Can also read between the lines. There is the implication that kobe bryants teammates aren't that good. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Injuries or not they won. Twice. And bynum played a huge role during their two championships. Just his presence alone helps. And I'm not gonna sit here and knock a guy for playing hurt. Its silly.

[Bring-Your-Js]

There is nothing uniquely great about the Lakers role players in championship seasons that couldn't be reproduced from the role players of any other playoff team. You have to be kidding.

Great Defense that's how. :confusedshrug:

The difference is nobody claims Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan or Shaq's teams were stacked in an effort to downplay his accomplishments.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[caliman]

The question was who won without a top 50 player all-time. The arguement can be made for Kobe in 2009 and 2010. Unless you think Gasol or Odom are top 50 all time.


:applause:

That is all the thread is about. No one is denying that Gasol, Odom, Bynum, et al played integral roles in the Lakers winning back to back. No player has ever won it alone. But none of those guys are sniffing a top 50 list, so Kobe in 2009 and 2010 is an answer to the thread question.

[DJ Leon Smith]

The question was who won without a top 50 player all-time. The arguement can be made for Kobe in 2009 and 2010. Unless you think Gasol or Odom are top 50 all time. No one is downplaying the cast its just facts. Granted that Kobe also won with the GREATEST coach of all time. But you Kobe haters need to stop acting like Kobe hasnt earned anything in his career.

If a Kobe fan will admit that Jordan won in 1991 without a top 50 player of all-time - when Pippen wasn't even an all-star that season - then I'm sure we'll all sit back and rationally discuss who is the GOAT without any kind of irrational Laker/Kobe nutsucking bias clouding views. Because Kobe fans are so rational, right?

(NOTE: I want to make a massive distinction between Laker fans and Kobe fans. Laker fans are generally very rational human beings. Kobe fans would defend him raping their mothers, saying that she asked for it.)

[DMAVS41]

Stacked doesn't mean among the subset of the top 5 players in the league the team with the most talent. You are only comparing the Lakers with only at most 4 other teams and ignoring the entire history of the NBA.

What?

Look, forget the term stacked then.

Kobe, at worst, had the 2nd best team around him in the league those two years.

That is stacked in my opinion. This isn't a semantics debate. The Lakers had one of the best, if not the best, rosters in the league. I don't think that is really debatable.

[DMAVS41]

There is nothing uniquely great about the Lakers role players in championship seasons that couldn't be reproduced from the role players of any other playoff team. You have to be kidding.

Great Defense that's how. :confusedshrug:

The difference is nobody claims Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan or Shaq's teams were stacked in an effort to downplay his accomplishments.

Because those guys all played much better than Kobe....especially on the biggest stage.

For starters, Duncan and Hakeem never had "stacked teams".....But Shaq and Jordan did. Absolutely. And that has to be factored in to an extent.

However, nobody really cares about that when you play as good as MJ and Shaq did on their title runs. However, you are insane if you think people don't look at Shaq's 4th title as less than his first 3.

Again, I don't know your definition of stacked. But I hope you aren't disputing that Kobe's supporting cast was arguably the best in the league those two title years. And its made even more so by the simple fact that the other great players were absolutely playing with less help.

Lebron? Less help.
Wade? Absolutely less help.
Dirk? Less help.

So that matters....

[ShaqAttack3234]

Glen Rice and Payton - what do you call a 38 year old Kidd?

Kidd helped Dallas win last year more than Rice helped LA win in 2000, or Payton helped LA in 2004.

Payton averaged 4/3/4 on 32% shooting in the 2000 finals and just 8/3/5 on 37% shooting for the entire playoffs.

Rice averaged 12/4/2 on 41% shooting for the 2000 playoffs, 12/3/2 on 40% shooting for the 2000 finals and for the final 3 rounds of the playoffs, he averaged 11/4/2 on 39% shooting.

If you want to use Phil's quote about Artest, then how about Phil's quotes about Rice?


After the game I met with the media as always, and the L.A, writers were anxious about Glen Rice, who would be a free agent next year. They wanted to know why Glen hadn't played much. "Maybe he doesn't deserve to play," I told them. "He doesn't seem capable of playing without the ball, so he's just not doing the job." -referring to early in the season


As for the rest of the team: Glen was still not comfortable moving without the ball. He also continued to vacate those spaces on the court where he'd historically scored his points. -referring to the Lakers 16 game winning streak in December/January

Article about Rice being benched in key parts of the NBA Finals due to him being a defensive liability.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UA0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7gMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6460,4689363&dq=glen+rice+benched&hl=en

Lakers getting referred to as "two deep" as opposed to Portland being called "too deep"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s



For starters, Duncan and Hakeem never had "stacked teams".....But Shaq and Jordan did. Absolutely. And that has to be factored in to an extent.

Shaq didn't have stacked teams when he won titles. He did from about '95-'98, but even then, his teammates choked quite a bit.

[Bring-Your-Js]

For starters, Duncan and Hakeem never had "stacked teams".....But Shaq and Jordan did. Absolutely. And that has to be factored in to an extent.


Hakeem was putting up PEAK SHAQ Finals-type numbers in the 1988 playoffs and couldnt get out of the first round.

37.5 PPG, 16.8 RPG, 2.8 BPG, 2.3 SPG, 1.8 APG on 57.1% from the field... Unless somebody wants to claim Hakeem Olajuwon "didnt play defense", then I think the situation he was in is rather obvious.

Once he got servicable scraps, he ran through everybody, unfortunately it came just as he was in the final years of his absolute prime. That's what happens when you're asked to completely carry a team on both ends of the floor and do it at the highest level possible. Houston was shafted enormously in 1993 btw.

His 1994 run is absolutely mythical and then some too. I'd even say 1995 even with Drexler was the stuff of LEGEND. The only 6th seeded team to hoist the Larry, no HCA in any series, they ran through a 60-win Jazz team, 59-win Suns team (down 3-1 no less), 62-win Spurs team and a 57-win Magic team (with Scoring Champ O'Neal and All NBA 1st Teamer Hardaway).

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Because those guys all played much better than Kobe....especially on the biggest stage.

For starters, Duncan and Hakeem never had "stacked teams".....But Shaq and Jordan did. Absolutely. And that has to be factored in to an extent.

However, nobody really cares about that when you play as good as MJ and Shaq did on their title runs. However, you are insane if you think people don't look at Shaq's 4th title as less than his first 3.

Again, I don't know your definition of stacked. But I hope you aren't disputing that Kobe's supporting cast was arguably the best in the league those two title years. And its made even more so by the simple fact that the other great players were absolutely playing with less help.

Lebron? Less help.
Wade? Absolutely less help.
Dirk? Less help.

So that matters....

My definition of stacked is an unusual amount of talent on one squad that cheapens the victory, stacks the deck if you will.

I can't fathom how people genuinely believe that Kobe's one star teammate ridden titles are stacked in terms of talent in comparison to the HOF triumvates of Jordan, Bird, Magic , Duncan, and the Celtics and Heat going forward.

Odom and Bynum are good players but historically they don't rate at all. They are probably the most talked about non all stars in history on this forum.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Another point is why does stacked not refer to a teams depth or the defensive talent of the supporting cast?

That all matters.

[Anaximandro1]

Hakeem,Duncan and Dirk come to mind :pimp:

Hakeem's 1994 Playoff run

Offensive Side

PTS ORB AST
Hakeem 664 55 98
Rockets 2234 232 570
Hakeem's Share 29.7% 23.7% 17.2%

-Hakeem averaged 28.9 pts (51.9%),2.4 orb, 4.3 as
-Rockets averaged 97.1 pts (46.1%),10.1 orb,24.8 as




Defensive Side

DRB BLK
Hakeem 199 92
Rockets 720 143
Hakeem's Share 27.6% 64.3%

-Hakeem averaged 8.6 drb,4.0 blk
-Rockets averaged 31.3 drb,6.2 blk
-Rockets allowed 94.0 pts per game (42.2%)

Duncan's 2003 Playoff run

Offensive Side

PTS ORB AST
Duncan 593 96 127
Spurs 2275 291 497
Duncan's Share 26.1% 33.0% 25.5%

-Duncan averaged 24.7 pts (52.9%),4.0 orb,5.3 as
-Spurs averaged 94.8 pts (44.1%),12.1 orb,20.7 as


Defensive Side

DRB BLK
Duncan 273 79
Spurs 802 165
Duncan's Share 34.0% 47.9%

-Duncan averaged 11.4 drb,3.3 blk
-Spurs averaged 33.4 drb,6.9 blk
-Spurs allowed 89.3 pts per game (40.4%)

Dirk's 2011 Playoff run

Offensive Side

PTS ORB AST
Dirk 582 12 53
Mavs 2063 203 423
Dirk's Share 28.2% 5.9% 12.5%

-Dirk averaged 27.7 pts (48.5%),0.6 orb,2.5 as
-Mavs averaged 98.2 pts (46.1%),9.7 orb,20.1 as




Defensive Side

DRB BLK
Dirk 159 13
Mavs 603 86
Dirk's Share 26.4% 15.1%

-Dirk averaged 7.6 drb,0.6 blk
-Mavs averaged 28.7 drb,4.1 blk
-Mavs allowed 92.5 pts per game (44.7%)

PER


1994 Hakeem 27.7
2003 Duncan 28.4
2011 Dirk 25.2
Win Shares

1994 Hakeem 4.3
2003 Duncan 5.9
2011 Dirk 3.6

[DMAVS41]

My definition of stacked is an unusual amount of talent on one squad that cheapens the victory, stacks the deck if you will.

I can't fathom how people genuinely believe that Kobe's one star teammate ridden titles are stacked in terms of talent in comparison to the HOF triumvates of Jordan, Bird, Magic , Duncan, and the Celtics and Heat going forward.

Odom and Bynum are good players but historically they don't rate at all. They are probably the most talked about non all stars in history on this forum.

Because Kobe wasn't playing those teams. And I'm not claiming some of those other players didn't have great teams either.

That is why I said throw out the semantics.

Where would you rate Kobe's supporting cast in the league in 09?...and 10? Please answer.

[DMAVS41]

Kidd helped Dallas win last year more than Rice helped LA win in 2000, or Payton helped LA in 2004.

Payton averaged 4/3/4 on 32% shooting in the 2000 finals and just 8/3/5 on 37% shooting for the entire playoffs.

Rice averaged 12/4/2 on 41% shooting for the 2000 playoffs, 12/3/2 on 40% shooting for the 2000 finals and for the final 3 rounds of the playoffs, he averaged 11/4/2 on 39% shooting.

If you want to use Phil's quote about Artest, then how about Phil's quotes about Rice?

-referring to early in the season

-referring to the Lakers 16 game winning streak in December/January

Article about Rice being benched in key parts of the NBA Finals due to him being a defensive liability.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UA0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7gMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6460,4689363&dq=glen+rice+benched&hl=en

Lakers getting referred to as "two deep" as opposed to Portland being called "too deep"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s



Shaq didn't have stacked teams when he won titles. He did from about '95-'98, but even then, his teammates choked quite a bit.

I didn't mean every year. But you and I will always disagree about the strength of the 01 Lakers compared to the competition. And obviously Shaq's team in 06 was pretty stacked considering he won as the clear 2nd option.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[/B]

I didn't mean every year. But you and I will always disagree about the strength of the 01 Lakers compared to the competition. And obviously Shaq's team in 06 was pretty stacked considering he won as the clear 2nd option.

I wouldn't disagree with 2001 as long as you're only talking about the playoffs due to Shaq and Kobe being the 2 best players in the game during the playoffs, Fisher playing way over his head that run and Grant being valuable because they faced Sheed, Webber and Duncan during that run and he defended all of them well. Depth wasn't great, but no duo has played that well in the playoffs and they ended up being a complete team for that run. The talent level outside of Shaq and Kobe was still not great, but everything came together at the right time, and everything fit in that specific situation. And the result was a 15-1 record.

Regarding 2006, yes in that way, but then you consider that they were 10-13 without him(10-11 with Wade in the lineup). So that ring is hard to judge, on one hand, he was the 2nd option and played with a top 2 player, but on the other hand, it's tough to ignore how poorly they played without him.

[DMAVS41]

I wouldn't disagree with 2001 as long as you're only talking about the playoffs due to Shaq and Kobe being the 2 best players in the game during the playoffs, Fisher playing way over his head that run and Grant being valuable because they faced Sheed, Webber and Duncan during that run and he defended all of them well. Depth wasn't great, but no duo has played that well in the playoffs and they ended up being a complete team for that run. The talent level outside of Shaq and Kobe was still not great, but everything came together at the right time, and everything fit in that specific situation. And the result was a 15-1 record.

Regarding 2006, yes in that way, but then you consider that they were 10-13 without him(10-11 with Wade in the lineup). So that ring is hard to judge, on one hand, he was the 2nd option and played with a top 2 player, but on the other hand, it's tough to ignore how poorly they played without him.

totally agree.

[The Iron Fist]

Another point is why does stacked not refer to a teams depth or the defensive talent of the supporting cast?

That all matters.


Because all that matters is the name on the jersey.:lol

[Doctor Rivers]

totally agree.









OWNED

[305Baller]

I agree with the Ben Wallace call.

[Jacks3]

Those are not his numbers from a series. Those are his numbers for the entire playoffs over two seasons. He was playing with an injury. An injured Bynum isn't one of the best centers in the league. Not even close.

Projecting future success has nothing to do with accurately describing past performance. I don't even know where you are getting the idea that Lakers fans are collectively penciling in 70+ wins in the future but even if its true its completely irrelevant.
This.

[Jacks3]

Again--anyone with eyes could see that the biggest problem for the 2010 Suns and Celtics when playing Lakers during the playoffs were the inside presence and the size and length of the Laker's front court.

lol @ this moron. Anyone with eyes could see that it was Kobe's EPIC series (34/9/7/2/63% TS) that won the Lakers that Suns series, and they won the Celtics series because Kobe was by far the best player on the court. They also had a big rebounding advantage and guess what? Kobe was the 2nd best re-bounder that series at 8 RPG. More than anybody on the Celtics.

Idiot.

[Jacks3]

^^^

The Gasol/Odom/Bynum is not as good as you make it to be.
Bynum was a non-factor in LA's Championship runs. Odom was average.

Gasol was beastin in '09 tho but disappeared in the '08 finals and he was stinkin it up but Kobe covered his ass in every single game back in the '10 finals.

18 points on 46% shooting and he was beyond horrible in Boston.
This. lol @ some of these idiots acting like Bynum/Odom have been more than a couple of role-players during the Lakers championship runs.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Because Kobe wasn't playing those teams. And I'm not claiming some of those other players didn't have great teams either.

That is why I said throw out the semantics.

Where would you rate Kobe's supporting cast in the league in 09?...and 10? Please answer.

Its impossible to separate a championship winning team from its talent level. By winning the title guys like Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Ariza/Artest are regarded as better players than they were before the two championships. What would Derick Fisher be without his 5 championships?... ....unemployed

Because the Cavs were unable to maintain their defensive dominance, the Magic were unable to continuing to shoot at an epic rate or the Celtics were unable to stay healthy doesn't retroactively change the fact that they were all credible contenders and had the talent level top to bottom counting everything (not just star power) to win the title.

[Jacks3]

My definition of stacked is an unusual amount of talent on one squad that cheapens the victory, stacks the deck if you will.

I can't fathom how people genuinely believe that Kobe's one star teammate ridden titles are stacked in terms of talent in comparison to the HOF triumvates of Jordan, Bird, Magic , Duncan, and the Celtics and Heat going forward.

Odom and Bynum are good players but historically they don't rate at all. They are probably the most talked about non all stars in history on this forum.
+1

[DMAVS41]

Its impossible to separate a championship winning team from its talent level. By winning the title guys like Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Ariza/Artest are regarded as better players than they were before the two championships. What would Derick Fisher be without his 5 championships?... ....unemployed

Because the Cavs were unable to maintain their defensive dominance, the Magic were unable to continuing to shoot at an epic rate or the Celtics were unable to stay healthy doesn't retroactively change the fact that they were all credible contenders and had the talent level top to bottom counting everything (not just star power) to win the title.

It really isn't.

Its not a difficult question. Where do you rank Kobe's supporting cast in 09 and 10?

Please answer.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It really isn't.

Its not a difficult question. Where do you rank Kobe's supporting cast in 09 and 10?

Please answer.

Compared to whose supporting cast? The best player on each team?

1. Pierce/Rondo/Ray/ + top notch defensive role players
2. Billups/Nene + deep bench
3. Gasol/Odom/Bynum
4. Assortment of Cavs players perfectly suited to play alongside Lebron .... great D/ great shooters
5. Amare/Richardson

[DMAVS41]

Compared to whose supporting cast? The best player on each team?

1. Pierce/Rondo/Ray/ + top notch defensive role players
2. Billups/Nene + deep bench
3. Gasol/Odom/Bynum
4. Assortment of Cavs players perfectly suited to play alongside Lebron .... great D/ great shooters

Ok.

So you think that Kobe had a top 3 supporting cast. That is all I wanted to know.

So then you have to factor in that no other elite player had that kind of help in terms of talent or coaching. I disagree about the Cavs being 4, but this isn't about that.

So you yourself put them at 3. I'd put them at 1 or 2, but that doesn't even matter. So we'll agree on top 3. So of all the elite players...or players that are arguably on Kobe's level, Kobe had the best supporting cast and coach.

Whether or not that is "stacked" is simply semantics. You keep bringing up older teams as if that has any relevance. The Lakers played the teams they played. They weren't playing the 86 Celtics or the 90's Bulls.

So of the 5 best players in the league, do you agree that Kobe had the best supporting cast in 09 and 10?

[Bring-Your-Js]

Debate Framework

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Ok.

So you think that Kobe had a top 3 supporting cast. That is all I wanted to know.

So then you have to factor in that no other elite player had that kind of help in terms of talent or coaching. I disagree about the Cavs being 4, but this isn't about that.

So you yourself put them at 3. I'd put them at 1 or 2, but that doesn't even matter. So we'll agree on top 3. So of all the elite players...or players that are arguably on Kobe's level, Kobe had the best supporting cast and coach.

Whether or not that is "stacked" is simply semantics. You keep bringing up older teams as if that has any relevance. The Lakers played the teams they played. They weren't playing the 86 Celtics or the 90's Bulls.

So of the 5 best players in the league, do you agree that Kobe had the best supporting cast in 09 and 10?


Who were the best players in the league? Who is elite? What does it matter?

[DMAVS41]

Who were the best players in the league?

You tell me.

I'm trying to solely use your logic so we can have a common ground.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You tell me.

I'm trying to solely use your logic so we can have a common ground.

Sweet finally I get to communicate with someone with intelligence. I consider Kevin Garnett an elite player. His supporting cast was better. I consider Carmelo Anthony an elite player. His supporting cast was better. :confusedshrug:

Nash had Amare, Richardson and a slew of better pieces than the Lakers role players too.

The Hawks had Joe Johnson, Al Horford, Josh Smith and Jamal Crawford too. Take out whoever you think is best and they are right there with the Lakerettes too.

[The Iron Fist]

Sweet finally I get to communicate with someone with intelligence. I consider Kevin Garnett an elite player. His supporting cast was better. I consider Carmelo Anthony an elite player. His supporting cast was better. :confusedshrug:

Nash had Amare, Richardson and a slew of better pieces than the Lakers role players too.
:rant players are only elite if they play alongside Kobe dammit, he is not responsible for any championships, it was all his teammates:rant

[DMAVS41]

Sweet finally I get to communicate with someone with intelligence. I consider Kevin Garnett an elite player. His supporting cast was better. I consider Carmelo Anthony an elite player. His supporting cast was better. :confusedshrug:

Ok. This is where we disagree a little.

I do think Carmelo was elite in 09, but not quite on the level of a Lebron, Wade, or Kobe.....or even Dirk to be honest. But I have no problem with you saying Carmelo had a better supporting cast. I disagree, but I don't find much of an issue.

KG? Nah, his last elite year was 08. Obviously he missed 09 and he just wasn't a top 5 or event top 10 player in 2010. To me, that is not elite.


But regardless, I really feel like we are just arguing semantics and actually agree. Were the Lakers by far the best team in the league both years? No. They weren't. Were they absolutely one of the 3 best teams? You bet....and we both agree on that.

Then, I feel like the other truly great players in the league didn't have a chance to really challenge Kobe. Take this year for example...almost all the elite players were on legit contenders. Kobe was. Dirk was. Durant was. Wade and Lebron were. Really only Howard wasn't. If you count Rose as elite he was as well.

But again, that might be somewhat irrelevant. I guess my ultimate stance is that when an elite player like Kobe has a top 3 supporting cast combined with the GOAT coach and the other players on his level have inferior teams.....then that team is "loaded" or "stacked" compared to the competition. If that doesn't fit your definition of "stacked"...then we don't use that word. Just simply say Kobe had one of the best teams in the league around him. You ranked it 3rd. Which is all anyone is really saying.

What does it matter if I have them first in 09 and you have them 2nd? What does it matter if I have them 2nd in 10 and you have them 3rd? It seems to me that we both think they were top 3.

Everything else is just a pointless semantics debate.

[DMAVS41]

Sweet finally I get to communicate with someone with intelligence. I consider Kevin Garnett an elite player. His supporting cast was better. I consider Carmelo Anthony an elite player. His supporting cast was better. :confusedshrug:

Nash had Amare, Richardson and a slew of better pieces than the Lakers role players too.

The Hawks had Joe Johnson, Al Horford, Josh Smith and Jamal Crawford too. Take out whoever you think is best and they are right there with the Lakerettes too.


The bold is really where we disagree. And that is fine. I understand your view, but I just disagree.

You probably think Richardson is a more valuable player than Odom. I don't. I also think Gasol is a better player than Amare.

So now it seems like you think the Lakers were worse than top 3.

Will you please rank them in 09 and 10 individually.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Ok. This is where we disagree a little.

I do think Carmelo was elite in 09, but not quite on the level of a Lebron, Wade, or Kobe.....or even Dirk to be honest. But I have no problem with you saying Carmelo had a better supporting cast. I disagree, but I don't find much of an issue.

KG? Nah, his last elite year was 08. Obviously he missed 09 and he just wasn't a top 5 or event top 10 player in 2010. To me, that is not elite.


But regardless, I really feel like we are just arguing semantics and actually agree. Were the Lakers by far the best team in the league both years? No. They weren't. Were they absolutely one of the 3 best teams? You bet....and we both agree on that.

Then, I feel like the other truly great players in the league didn't have a chance to really challenge Kobe. Take this year for example...almost all the elite players were on legit contenders. Kobe was. Dirk was. Durant was. Wade and Lebron were. Really only Howard wasn't. If you count Rose as elite he was as well.

But again, that might be somewhat irrelevant. I guess my ultimate stance is that when an elite player like Kobe has a top 3 supporting cast combined with the GOAT coach and the other players on his level have inferior teams.....then that team is "loaded" or "stacked" compared to the competition. If that doesn't fit your definition of "stacked"...then we don't use that word. Just simply say Kobe had one of the best teams in the league around him. You ranked it 3rd. Which is all anyone is really saying.

What does it matter if I have them first in 09 and you have them 2nd? What does it matter if I have them 2nd in 10 and you have them 3rd? It seems to me that we both think they were top 3.

Everything else is just a pointless semantics debate.

Kobe is "elite" because of his legendary playoff resume. If Carmelo Anthony or Kevin Garnett was coming into this 08 or 09 season with 3 rings under their belt you can bet they would be considered elite by any measure even if they put up the same exact numbers.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

[/B]

The bold is really where we disagree. And that is fine. I understand your view, but I just disagree.

You probably think Richardson is a more valuable player than Odom. I don't. I also think Gasol is a better player than Amare.

So now it seems like you think the Lakers were worse than top 3.

Will you please rank them in 09 and 10 individually.

Did you think Gasol was a better player than Amare when he was in Memphis? That's the point I'm trying to make. The perception of Gasol changed when he won the title.

The perception of the Spurs this year or the Mavs in 07 changed after first round of the playoffs. Did they suddenly because less talented because they had a rough week on the court?

[DMAVS41]

Kobe is "elite" because of his legendary playoff resume. If Carmelo Anthony or Kevin Garnett was coming into this 08 or 09 season with 3 rings under their belt you can bet they would be considered elite by any measure even if they put up the same exact numbers.

I don't see the relevance. Kobe was simply a better player than Carmelo and KG at that point. As were many other players in the NBA. KG had a title under his belt in 08, but there was no doubt that Dirk was a much better player in 10.

So I don't understand that at all.

[DMAVS41]

Did you think Gasol was a better player than Amare when he was in Memphis? That's the point I'm trying to make. The perception of Gasol changed when he won the title.

The perception of the Spurs this year or the Mavs in 07 changed after first round of the playoffs. Did they suddenly because less talented because they had a rough week on the court?

1. Gasol has improved his game since then. You can't just ignore the simple fact that Gasol in 07 and 08 was not as good as he was in 09 or 10. You act like there isn't a natural progression of players. You have to account for the simple fact that players can improve. I don't think you are doing that here. Its not just that Gasol won a title. Its how he played. He was very good in 09 and pretty much great in 10. That is what I'm basing this off.

2. Of course not. I've been saying that for over a year here. I could say the same thing about the Lakers this year. They were absolutely one of the most talented teams this year. Does that change because they didn't show up one week?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't see the relevance. Kobe was simply a better player than Carmelo and KG at that point. As were many other players in the NBA. KG had a title under his belt in 08, but there was no doubt that Dirk was a much better player in 10.

So I don't understand that at all.

If Carmelo had 5 rings he would be considered the best SF in the game. That's the point I'm trying to make. In the real world (not internet message boards) rings trump stats all day every day.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

1. Gasol has improved his game since then. You can't just ignore the simple fact that Gasol in 07 and 08 was not as good as he was in 09 or 10. You act like there isn't a natural progression of players. You have to account for the simple fact that players can improve. I don't think you are doing that here. Its not just that Gasol won a title. Its how he played. He was very good in 09 and pretty much great in 10. That is what I'm basing this off.

2. Of course not. I've been saying that for over a year here. I could say the same thing about the Lakers this year. They were absolutely one of the most talented teams this year. Does that change because they didn't show up one week?

1. Not by much. What has he improved in? His rebounding is about the same. His efficiency is about the same. His passing is about the same. He just got completely abused by Dirk in the playoffs so any perceived improvement on defense appears to be temporary.

2. My point is that they had contending talent just like a bunch of teams this year and several teams in 08 and 09. You severely underestimate the difficulty of winning a title. What you perceive as large talent gaps between teams are much smaller than you think.

[DMAVS41]

1. Not by much. What has he improved in? His rebounding is about the same. His efficiency is about the same. His passing is about the same. He just got completely abused by Dirk in the playoffs so any perceived improvement on defense appears to be temporary.

2. My point is that they had contending talent just like a bunch of teams this year and several teams in 08 and 09. You severely underestimate the difficulty of winning a title. What you perceive as large talent gaps between teams are much smaller than you think.

1. This is about 09 and 10...not this year. The Lakers never would have won the title without Gasol playing great those years. If he had played like he did this year, the Lakers would never even made the Finals either year.

Gasol improved, its just a simple fact. Noticeably at that. But he was always a very good player. Yes, I'd take him over Amare. I don't think that is some crazy statement. Gasol is a better passer, defender, and rebounder. He has a much higher basketball IQ as well.

Its not just that they won the title so people think Gasol is much better. Its about how he played. How he really played Howard so well in 09. How he outplayed pretty much the entire Celtics front line in 10. Jesus man...he put up 20/11/4 on great efficiency last year in the playoffs and came through in a lot of big moments. Not many players in the game right now can do that playing next to a ball dominant player like Kobe.

2. I'm not saying that at all. The NBA title is the hardest title to win in all of sports....but its that way because of teams like the Lakers. You already said it yourself that you rank the Lakers in the top 3 in terms of supporting cast. Then you factor in arguably the GOAT coach and the fact that Gasol gave the Lakers probably the best 2nd option in the league as well. The Lakers strength was front line play....the exact thing you need to win titles and the exact thing that is a weak point for many teams.

I don't think anyone is saying anything different than you. You yourself say they were one of the elite teams. They were favored in every series they played. They had as much or more talent than every team they played. They had the best coach in every series they played. They had the best 2nd option in every series they played. They had the best frontline in every series they played.

I honestly don't know what your issue is. Do you want people to act like Kobe winning those two titles is the same as Hakeem in 94 or Duncan in 03?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

1. This is about 09 and 10...not this year. The Lakers never would have won the title without Gasol playing great those years. If he had played like he did this year, the Lakers would never even made the Finals either year.

Gasol improved, its just a simple fact. Noticeably at that. But he was always a very good player. Yes, I'd take him over Amare. I don't think that is some crazy statement. Gasol is a better passer, defender, and rebounder. He has a much higher basketball IQ as well.

Its not just that they won the title so people think Gasol is much better. Its about how he played. How he really played Howard so well in 09. How he outplayed pretty much the entire Celtics front line in 10. Jesus man...he put up 20/11/4 on great efficiency last year in the playoffs and came through in a lot of big moments. Not many players in the game right now can do that playing next to a ball dominant player like Kobe.

2. I'm not saying that at all. The NBA title is the hardest title to win in all of sports....but its that way because of teams like the Lakers. You already said it yourself that you rank the Lakers in the top 3 in terms of supporting cast. Then you factor in arguably the GOAT coach and the fact that Gasol gave the Lakers probably the best 2nd option in the league as well. The Lakers strength was front line play....the exact thing you need to win titles and the exact thing that is a weak point for many teams.

I don't think anyone is saying anything different than you. You yourself say they were one of the elite teams. They were favored in every series they played. They had as much or more talent than every team they played. They had the best coach in every series they played. They had the best 2nd option in every series they played. They had the best frontline in every series they played.

I honestly don't know what your issue is. Do you want people to act like Kobe winning those two titles is the same as Hakeem in 94 or Duncan in 03?

1. I never said that the Lakers would have won the title without Pau. That's not even remotely what I'm talking about. He averaged roughly 18/10 in the 09 and 10 Finals. Amare has a playoff average of 23/9. Pau Gasol has a playoff average of 18/10. Its not an insult to Pau to say Amare is capable of duplicating that production.

Before the trade Bill Simmons had the two ranked the following way...


22. Pau Gasol
Still picking up his teeth after Dirk Nowitzki handed it to him in the playoffs. He might need to shave the beard into muttonchop sideburns next season. You know, just to mix things up.

7. Amare Stoudemire
Remember, he was No. 2 on last year's list. Now? You got me. Let's just say that the track record of NBA stars missing an entire season because of a serious injury, then returning to their pre-injury form isn't extensive. In fact, it doesn't exist. There's no precedent. Bernard King might have come the closest. And that's why this is every Phoenix fan's worst-case scenario opening for a March 2008 episode of "Real Sports":
"Hello, I'm Bryant Gumbel. Tonight on Real Sports, figure skating has become a multi-billion-dollar business ... so why would the sport continue to shun asthmatic amputees? Bernie Goldberg has more. Also, Mary Carillo investigates a bulimic jockey fantasy league in Kentucky that went horribly wrong. And Frank Deford has the tragic story of an autistic Special Olympian Russian immigrant who somehow survived Cherynobyl, Colombine, the Unabomber AND the Exxon-Valdez spill before finally losing his life during a coal mine collapse. But first, how Amare Stoudamire's microfracture knee surgery completely altered the course of a potential Hall of Fame career. More importantly, why aren't NBA players ever the same after this procedure? Armen Keteyian intentionally blew out his left knee to find out."


2. You compare the Lakers to the competition their contemporaries yet you don't do the same for the Spurs in 03 or the Rockets in 94.

Isn't it also true they had the best frontline in every playoff series?

Isn't it also true they never faced a team with a better record or were likely favored every playoff series?

Isn't it also true that they were coached by legendary HOF coaches?

Were they not elite teams when they finished the season with nearly 60 wins each and a ring?

Did they not have top 3 supporting casts? As you like to say which top 5 player had a better supporting cast?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

94 Jazz (the only team arguably "more talented") vs Rockets is pretty interesting

Game 1 Kenny Smith 9 for 14... 6 for 9 from 3 27 pts 5 assists

Game 2 12 offensive rebounds from players not named Hakeem

Game 3 Loss

Game 4 Hakeem 6 for 18 ... 16 pts 9 rebounds
Kenny Smith 8 for 15... 25 pts 4 assits

Game 5 Robert Horry 8 for 13 22pts 9 rebs
Hakeem 9 for 19 22 pts 10 rebs
Maxwell 19 pts
Thorpe 16 rebounds


Leading Rockets by Game Score

Game 1: Kenny Smith
Game 2: Hakeem
Game 3: Hakeem
Game 4: Kenny Smith
Game 5: Robert Horry

Mavs vs "more talented" Heat

Leading Mavs by Game Score

Game 1: Dirk
Game 2: Shawn Marion
Game 3: Dirk
Game 4: Tyson Chandler
Game 5: Dirk
Game 6: Jason Terry

HAKEEM AND DIRK DID IT ALL BY THEMSELVES :facepalm

[The Iron Fist]

1. I never said that the Lakers would have won the title without Pau. That's not even remotely what I'm talking about. He averaged roughly 18/10 in the 09 and 10 Finals. Amare has a playoff average of 23/9. Pau Gasol has a playoff average of 18/10. Its not an insult to Pau to say Amare is capable of duplicating that production.

Before the trade Bill Simmons had the two ranked the following way...



2. You compare the Lakers to the competition their contemporaries yet you don't do the same for the Spurs in 03 or the Rockets in 94.

Isn't it also true they had the best frontline in every playoff series?

Isn't it also true they never faced a team with a better record or were likely favored every playoff series?

Isn't it also true that they were coached by legendary HOF coaches?

Were they not elite teams when they finished the season with nearly 60 wins each and a ring?

Did they not have top 3 supporting casts? As you like to say which top 5 player had a better supporting cast?


Every time the Spurs won the title, they were a top 3 team in the regular season, twice having the most wins.

[The Iron Fist]

94 Jazz (the only team arguably "more talented") vs Rockets is pretty interesting

Game 1 Kenny Smith 9 for 14... 6 for 9 from 3 27 pts 5 assists

Game 2 12 offensive rebounds from players not named Hakeem

Game 3 Loss

Game 4 Hakeem 6 for 18 ... 16 pts 9 rebounds
Kenny Smith 8 for 15... 25 pts 4 assits

Game 5 Robert Horry 8 for 13 22pts 9 rebs
Hakeem 9 for 19 22 pts 10 rebs
Maxwell 19 pts
Thorpe 16 rebounds


Leading Rockets by Game Score

Game 1: Kenny Smith
Game 2: Hakeem
Game 3: Hakeem
Game 4: Kenny Smith
Game 5: Robert Horry

Mavs vs "more talented" Heat

Leading Mavs by Game Score

Game 1: Dirk
Game 2: Shawn Marion
Game 3: Dirk
Game 4: Tyson Chandler
Game 5: Dirk
Game 6: Jason Terry

HAKEEM AND DIRK DID IT ALL BY THEMSELVES :facepalm


:lol You must be watching a different NBA, its a fact they did it all by themselves. Stats can be misleading:lol

[rmt]

1. This is about 09 and 10...not this year. The Lakers never would have won the title without Gasol playing great those years. If he had played like he did this year, the Lakers would never even made the Finals either year.

Gasol improved, its just a simple fact. Noticeably at that. But he was always a very good player. Yes, I'd take him over Amare. I don't think that is some crazy statement. Gasol is a better passer, defender, and rebounder. He has a much higher basketball IQ as well.

Its not just that they won the title so people think Gasol is much better. Its about how he played. How he really played Howard so well in 09. How he outplayed pretty much the entire Celtics front line in 10. Jesus man...he put up 20/11/4 on great efficiency last year in the playoffs and came through in a lot of big moments. Not many players in the game right now can do that playing next to a ball dominant player like Kobe.

2. I'm not saying that at all. The NBA title is the hardest title to win in all of sports....but its that way because of teams like the Lakers. You already said it yourself that you rank the Lakers in the top 3 in terms of supporting cast. Then you factor in arguably the GOAT coach and the fact that Gasol gave the Lakers probably the best 2nd option in the league as well. The Lakers strength was front line play....the exact thing you need to win titles and the exact thing that is a weak point for many teams.

I don't think anyone is saying anything different than you. You yourself say they were one of the elite teams. They were favored in every series they played. They had as much or more talent than every team they played. They had the best coach in every series they played. They had the best 2nd option in every series they played. They had the best frontline in every series they played.

I honestly don't know what your issue is. Do you want people to act like Kobe winning those two titles is the same as Hakeem in 94 or Duncan in 03?

This bolded statement is at the heart of the matter. In order for Kobe to move up the perceived GOAT rankings, some Kobe fans would like to pretend that Kobe's '09 or '10 playoff run is the same as/equivalent to Hakeem ('94) or Duncan ('03). They don't want to wait for the sheer weight (if he continues to win rings) of his career achievements to surpass Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem.

They pretend that Kobe's cast was carried the same way Hakeem and Duncan carried rookies like Sam Cassell and Manu or 2nd year players like Horry, Parker and SJax. They try to down play the rest of his team (the best frontline, most versatile 6th man, clutch role players) to prop up Kobe in an era where the majority of teams are hurting for 1 good big man much less 3. There's a reason why LA considers Bynum untouchable - the lack of good bigs in the league.

And before anyone mentions it, yes, I'd trade any of LA's 1-6 players for the Spurs' except for Parker. Gasol/Bynum for Duncan, Odom for Bonner/Blair/Dice/Splitter, Artest for RJ, Kobe for Manu. The majority of the league would too.


1. I never said that the Lakers would have won the title without Pau. That's not even remotely what I'm talking about. He averaged roughly 18/10 in the 09 and 10 Finals. Amare has a playoff average of 23/9. Pau Gasol has a playoff average of 18/10. Its not an insult to Pau to say Amare is capable of duplicating that production.

As far as Gasol/Amare comparison, Amare is a black hole where defense is concerned (you know, half of the game). Why some one with his athleticism won't play defense is beyond me - the only explanation is that he's so stupid he doesn't realize its importance.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

This bolded statement is at the heart of the matter. In order for Kobe to move up the perceived GOAT rankings, some Kobe fans would like to pretend that Kobe's '09 or '10 playoff run is the same as/equivalent to Hakeem ('94) or Duncan ('03). They don't want to wait for the sheer weight (if he continues to win rings) of his career achievements to surpass Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem.



This is comically false for a number of reasons. A) Kobe is already ahead of those 3 and more importantly B) there exists a myth that Kobe championships are tainted because his teams were "stacked". The fact that we are sitting here and comparing them to some of least star ridden championship titles ever won in by legendary players in history has already exposed that myth as false.

[creepingdeath]

Leading Mavs by Game Score

Game 1: Dirk
Game 2: Shawn Marion
Game 3: Dirk
Game 4: Tyson Chandler
Game 5: Dirk
Game 6: Jason Terry

HAKEEM AND DIRK DID IT ALL BY THEMSELVES :facepalm
So now it's gamescore? :roll: Okay well, Pau Gasol lead LA 4 times in gsc in the 2010 finals... :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

So now it's gamescore? :roll: Okay well, Pau Gasol lead LA 4 times in gsc in the 2010 finals... :lol

Game 1 Gasol
Game 2 Gasol
Game 3 Kobe
Game 4 Kobe
Game 5 Kobe
Game 6 Kobe
Game 7 Gasol

In the finals Kobe was more likely to be best player on his team any given game than Dirk

Stats don't lie

[rmt]

This is comically false for a number of reasons. A) Kobe is already ahead of those 3 and more importantly B) there exists a myth that Kobe championships are tainted because his teams were "stacked". The fact that we are sitting here and comparing them to some of least star ridden championship titles ever won in by legendary players in history has already exposed that myth as false.

Kobe's career > Hakeem's - I have Kobe at #9 and Hakeem at #10. Is he a better player than Hakeem? IMO, no. Would I choose Kobe over Shaq, Duncan or Hakeem to start a franchise? Hell, no!!!!

The reason we're sitting here discussing this is the reaction (from other some what sane basketball fans - since we are all "fanatics") to some Kobe fans claiming that Kobe hasn't had a lot of help (in some Kobe fans' opinion, less help than Hakeem or Duncan).

[millwad]

94 Jazz (the only team arguably "more talented") vs Rockets is pretty interesting

Game 1 Kenny Smith 9 for 14... 6 for 9 from 3 27 pts 5 assists

Game 2 12 offensive rebounds from players not named Hakeem

Game 3 Loss

Game 4 Hakeem 6 for 18 ... 16 pts 9 rebounds
Kenny Smith 8 for 15... 25 pts 4 assits

Game 5 Robert Horry 8 for 13 22pts 9 rebs
Hakeem 9 for 19 22 pts 10 rebs
Maxwell 19 pts
Thorpe 16 rebounds


Leading Rockets by Game Score

Game 1: Kenny Smith
Game 2: Hakeem
Game 3: Hakeem
Game 4: Kenny Smith
Game 5: Robert Horry


HAKEEM AND DIRK DID IT ALL BY THEMSELVES :facepalm

Pure trash post..:facepalm
Yeah, the game score tells the whole truth, I bet you haven't seen even a second of that series. And please, you even got it wrong by looking at the boxscores.

You act like Kenny Smith and Robert Horry actually could hold their own without Hakeem or that they could actually create their own shot.

And at least tell the truth if you're gonna make a post like that. Kenny Smith wasn't the game leader in points for the Rockets in Game 1, Hakeem was with 31 points.

GAME 1:
Hakeem was the game leader in points with 31 points, not Kenny.

Game 2:
You had so little to actually come with about that game that you had to mention the offensive rebounds, haha. Hakeem in that game had 41 points, 13 rebounds, 6 assists and 3 blocks. The second best scorer for the Rockets was Mario Elie with 17 points, with an amazing 3 of 9 shooting..

Game 3:
Hakeem had a great game with 29 points, 13 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 blocks and 4 steals. Hakeem's teammates were so good that the second best scorer in that loss was Maxwell with 17 points on 7 of 17 shooting, that's great, isn't it? And lets not even start to talk about Sam Cassell's terrific game, after all he had 14 points on 22% shooting from the court..

Game 4:
Hakeem's worst game of the series, he ended up with 16 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assist and 5 blocks. Kenny had a great game and had the game high, 25 points.

Game 5:
Hakeem with easily the best game again, he had 22 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists, 7 blocks and 4 steals. Almost a 5-5-5-5-5 game which is really rare. Robert Horry with a good game, tied in points with Hakeem but Maxwell with his 19 points on 41% shooting was crap.

So Hakeem actually had the game high in 4 of the 5 games, still you only gave him credit for having the game high in 2 games, obviously you can't even read boxscores...

So yeah, Hakeem did it more by himself than anyone else..

[All Net]

Pau was a huge part of our titles in 09 and 10. You have to be crazy to think otherwise. he stepped his game up big time when it mattered and I know alot of Laker fans love to hate on him due to what happened this year but the way he played in the playoffs this year showed how important he is to this ball club and him playing like crap played a big part in us getting beat.

[Horatio33]

Bill Simmons on Gasol and Kobe after 09 Finals.


Take Gasol, who shot 62 percent from the field in the last two rounds. You know how many shots he attempted in those 11 games? 120. You know how many big guys would have been happy with a situation in which their coach said, "I know you score six out of every 10 times we get you the ball, but you're going to have to live with 11 shots a game because we can't win a title unless Kobe's happy?" Not many. Shaq didn't like the arrangement and got shipped out of town

[Jacks3]

What a stupid post. Gasol shot 60% precisely because he was taking only 11 shots per game and because many of those shots were created off the defensive attention of Bryant. Seriously. Dude was taking only 13 FGA in Memphis even as the clear #1 option. Bill Simmons is a moron and so are you Kobe haters.

:facepalm

[Jacks3]

This is comically false for a number of reasons. A) Kobe is already ahead of those 3 and more importantly B) there exists a myth that Kobe championships are tainted because his teams were "stacked". The fact that we are sitting here and comparing them to some of least star ridden championship titles ever won in by legendary players in history has already exposed that myth as false.
+1

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Pure trash post..:facepalm
Yeah, the game score tells the whole truth, I bet you haven't seen even a second of that series. And please, you even got it wrong by looking at the boxscores.

You act like Kenny Smith and Robert Horry actually could hold their own without Hakeem or that they could actually create their own shot.

And at least tell the truth if you're gonna make a post like that. Kenny Smith wasn't the game leader in points for the Rockets in Game 1, Hakeem was with 31 points.

GAME 1:
Hakeem was the game leader in points with 31 points, not Kenny.

Game 2:
You had so little to actually come with about that game that you had to mention the offensive rebounds, haha. Hakeem in that game had 41 points, 13 rebounds, 6 assists and 3 blocks. The second best scorer for the Rockets was Mario Elie with 17 points, with an amazing 3 of 9 shooting..

Game 3:
Hakeem had a great game with 29 points, 13 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 blocks and 4 steals. Hakeem's teammates were so good that the second best scorer in that loss was Maxwell with 17 points on 7 of 17 shooting, that's great, isn't it? And lets not even start to talk about Sam Cassell's terrific game, after all he had 14 points on 22% shooting from the court..

Game 4:
Hakeem's worst game of the series, he ended up with 16 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assist and 5 blocks. Kenny had a great game and had the game high, 25 points.

Game 5:
Hakeem with easily the best game again, he had 22 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists, 7 blocks and 4 steals. Almost a 5-5-5-5-5 game which is really rare. Robert Horry with a good game, tied in points with Hakeem but Maxwell with his 19 points on 41% shooting was crap.

So Hakeem actually had the game high in 4 of the 5 games, still you only gave him credit for having the game high in 2 games, obviously you can't even read boxscores...

So yeah, Hakeem did it more by himself than anyone else..

Game Score doesn't mean highest scoring. Its basically the single game version of PER.


GmSc
Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, i.e., 40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.

[Nevaeh]

I like your style Yao Ming's Foot. You're gonna find that elusive formula to get Kobe into GOAT status if it kills you :oldlol:

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Game Score doesn't mean highest scoring. Its basically the single game version of PER.

Yet he weights steals greater than blocks and assists... it weights offensive rebounds more than defensive rebounds....

[rmt]

Bill Simmons on Gasol and Kobe after 09 Finals.

Take Gasol, who shot 62 percent from the field in the last two rounds. You know how many shots he attempted in those 11 games? 120. You know how many big guys would have been happy with a situation in which their coach said, "I know you score six out of every 10 times we get you the ball, but you're going to have to live with 11 shots a game because we can't win a title unless Kobe's happy?" Not many. Shaq didn't like the arrangement and got shipped out of town

Gasol is the perfect complement to Kobe. IMO, foreign-born people are raised differently from American-borns. They are not as self-centered, "me, me, me" as Americans and are more willing to take a secondary role. Please note that I'm not knocking that Americans have an individualistic attitude since it does foster creativity and belief that they can do anything. It's just different from the rest of the world, not better/worse.

This is my knock on Kobe - why take these some times impossible shots when he's covered instead of passing off for a much higher percentage shot? He just wants to be the hero.

[KenneBell]

He just wants to be the hero.
Or he feels like he can make the impossible shot. Two edged sword.

As for underrating of Kobe's last few playoff runs, I pretty don't read much of ISH has to say. They'll stand on their own merit after he retires.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Gasol is the perfect complement to Kobe. IMO, foreign-born people are raised differently from American-borns. They are not as self-centered, "me, me, me" as Americans and are more willing to take a secondary role. Please note that I'm not knocking that Americans have an individualistic attitude since it does foster creativity and belief that they can do anything. It's just different from the rest of the world, not better/worse.

This is my knock on Kobe - why take these some times impossible shots when he's covered instead of passing off for a much higher percentage shot? He just wants to be the hero.

Its a logical flaw in your analysis. Pau Gasol has such a high percentage due to the fact when he doesn't he have a great scoring opportunity he quickly passes out. Now the Lakers are left with a situation where they have no likely scoring opportunity and someone needs to make the most of it. That someone is often Kobe Bryant.


Shortly after lunch on Friday, Matthew Goldman presented a paper crafted in collaboration with Justin M. Rao called "Allocation & Dynamic Efficiency in NBA Decision Making." The concept was not just how you shoot, but when you shoot -- specifically, when in the shot clock you shoot. Goldman treated the idea as a sort of tradeoff: at every second, whichever player has the ball is making a decision to either shoot (and "use" the possession) or don't (and "continue" the possession).

Thus, we have Goldman's concept of dynamic efficiency. To quote him: "A shot is realized only if its expected value exceeds the continuation value of a possession."

Some of the ideas Goldman presented were straightforward -- players become more aggressive (and less efficient) with shot selection later in the shot clock, point guards & wings are naturally better than bigs at creating effective opportunities, and teams with either low experience or high salary are ineffective at allocating shots effectively. (Just ask the Heat last night.)

Much more fascinating, however, was his extrapolation of this concept into the idea of "overshooters" and "undershooters." Using his model of dynamic efficiency in the shot clock, Goldman found that since 2006 (not including this season) the best players in the NBA more significantly undershoot than the top gunners overshoot -- and the numbers aren't close.




What's also notable is that the undershooters "undershot" almost twice as much as the overshooters "overshot." But the most surprising revelation had to be Goldman's figures on Kobe Bryant, which found that he slightly leaned towards the side of undershooting. I don't think anyone in NBA history has accused Kobe of undershooting before (the second half of Game 7 in the 2006 Western Conference first-round exit excluded), but Goldman stood by his formula.

Goldman explains by e-mail that injury concerns could be a factor: "Kobe's undershooting t-statistic is 2.3. This means he undershoots in a very statistically significant way, but not quite on the order of LeBron/CP3/Roy. As a nice counterbalance, Pau Gasol has an undershooting t-stat of 2.83 and as such his undershooting behavior is more statistically significant that Kobe's. ... I think there is a pretty intuitive rationalization for the undershooters we observed. These guys are elite players with very flat skill curves. If LeBron always acted like there were five seconds on the shot clock and crashed hard to the basket to create a shot, his team would certainly be better off in the short run. However, his body would wear out in about a week. I don't think LeBron (and the others) estimated undershooting is at all suboptimal for the larger goal of surviving the season and playing well in the playoffs. It is worth noting that a lot of the guys on the undershooter list have or are currently having knee trouble and may not want to constantly push themselves to create immediate value for their team on the margin."

Pau Gasol absolutely needs to be more aggressive when he touches the ball and take more shots, but how that's Kobe's fault is beyond me.

[LJJ]

Its a logical flaw in your analysis. Pau Gasol has such a high percentage due to the fact when he doesn't he have a great scoring opportunity he quickly passes out. Now the Lakers are left with a situation where they have no likely scoring opportunity and someone needs to make the most of it. That someone is often Kobe Bryant.

Pau Gasol absolutely needs to be more aggressive when he touches the ball and take more shots, but how that's Kobe's fault is beyond me.

I think we've all seen the last playoffs were Bynum was playing very well in most games but simply could not buy a shot. With the way he was playing he absolutely should have been getting 20 shots a game in the playoffs, but he simply did not get the touches.

Finally the Lakers promising C is performing the way he should and Bryant averages to lowest assists in his entire career, funny how that works. Must've been "undershooting" again.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I think we've all seen the last playoffs were Bynum was playing very well in most games but simply could not buy a shot. With the way he was playing he absolutely should have been getting 20 shots a game in the playoffs, but he simply did not get the touches.

Finally the Lakers promising C is performing the way he should and Bryant averages to lowest assists in his entire career, funny how that works. Must've been "undershooting" again.

No that's just your own ignorance on display. Bynum playing well doesn't counteract Pau Gasol and Odom playing poorly. Great back to basket centers are usually not assisted on their buckets either. Think smarter and try again.

[LJJ]

No that's just your own ignorance on display. Bynum playing well doesn't counteract Pau Gasol and Odom playing poorly. Great back to basket centers are usually not assisted on their buckets either. Think smarter and try again.

I don't see how any of that is a reason for Bynum simply not getting enough shots.

But keep piling up the excuses.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't see how any of that is a reason for Bynum simply not getting enough shots.

But keep piling up the excuses.

He had a higher usage % in the playoffs than he has ever had. :confusedshrug:

[creepingdeath]

Game Score doesn't mean highest scoring. Its basically the single game version of PER.
So you're saying Gsc is a great tool but PER sucks, or what? Cause according to PER, Kobe has never been close to being the best player in the league. :roll:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

So you're saying Gsc is a great tool but PER sucks, or what? Cause according to PER, Kobe has never been close to being the best player in the league. :roll:

I never said it was a great tool. I just didn't want to copy and format box scores for hours all day. It's just a convenient way to show Hakeem's one man team had help. You are welcome to disregard it and look at the numbers yourself and opine why Game Score is biased in a way to make Hakeem look bad.

However low you consider Kobe to be in the best player in the game rankings just further makes his 5 championships more unlikely and thus more impressive. But I hope you are smart enough to recognize the difference between comparing players on the same team vs players on other teams.

[madmax]

So you're saying Gsc is a great tool but PER sucks, or what? Cause according to PER, Kobe has never been close to being the best player in the league. :roll:

he wasn't even the best player on his own team most of the times...:lol I remember Gasol edging him more often than not in this stat and even Odom was close to him in this regard:D

[Yao Ming's Foot]

he wasn't even the best player on his own team most of the times...:lol I remember Gasol edging him more often than not in this stat and even Odom was close to him in this regard:D

PER edge

Kobe
2008 Regular Season
2008 Playoffs
2009 Regular Season
2009 Playoffs
2010 Playoffs
2011 Regular Season
2011 Playoffs


Gasol
2010 Regular Season

Odom


Kobe haters taking pride in being wrong since 1996

[Yao Ming's Foot]

How many games would you guess that Odom lead the Lakers in Game Score in the playoffs?

2011 0 times
2010 0 times
2009 2 times vs Utah (1-1)
2008 1 time vs Utah , 1 time vs Celtics, 1 vs Spurs (1-2)
2007 1 time vs Suns (0-1)
2006 1 time vs Suns (1-0)

[Balla_Status]

Are you guys really saying J-Kidd isn't top 50?

A 38 year old Jason Kidd didnt play like a top 50 player.

[DMAVS41]

1. I never said that the Lakers would have won the title without Pau. That's not even remotely what I'm talking about. He averaged roughly 18/10 in the 09 and 10 Finals. Amare has a playoff average of 23/9. Pau Gasol has a playoff average of 18/10. Its not an insult to Pau to say Amare is capable of duplicating that production.

Before the trade Bill Simmons had the two ranked the following way...



2. You compare the Lakers to the competition their contemporaries yet you don't do the same for the Spurs in 03 or the Rockets in 94.

Isn't it also true they had the best frontline in every playoff series?

Isn't it also true they never faced a team with a better record or were likely favored every playoff series?

Isn't it also true that they were coached by legendary HOF coaches?

Were they not elite teams when they finished the season with nearly 60 wins each and a ring?

Did they not have top 3 supporting casts? As you like to say which top 5 player had a better supporting cast?


1. What does this have to do with pre trade Gasol. He was grossly under-rated. Can you really not admit that? How is that not just an accepted fact by now? So not only was he under-rated, but he also got better since he joined the Lakers as well. If you aren't willing to accept that, then this debate is pointless.

Where do you rank Gasol in 09 and 10? You think he's just some average PF? He put up 20/11/4 for the playoffs last year. Jesus, you Kobe fans act like Gasol in 10 was not better than Terry this year or something. In fact, I'm pretty sure tpols said that exact thing.

2. Nobody is claiming any other players won alone. But come on. Are you really comparing the 03 Spurs to the 09/10 Lakers????? Really. Yes, the 03 Spurs caught a few breaks, but they also beat the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

If you really think its similar for what Duncan did in 03 compared to Kobe the two titles then I give up. We are way too far apart to have a legit discussion.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

1. What does this have to do with pre trade Gasol. He was grossly under-rated. Can you really not admit that? How is that not just an accepted fact by now? So not only was he under-rated, but he also got better since he joined the Lakers as well. If you aren't willing to accept that, then this debate is pointless.

Where do you rank Gasol in 09 and 10? You think he's just some average PF? He put up 20/11/4 for the playoffs last year. Jesus, you Kobe fans act like Gasol in 10 was not better than Terry this year or something. In fact, I'm pretty sure tpols said that exact thing.

2. Nobody is claiming any other players won alone. But come on. Are you really comparing the 03 Spurs to the 09/10 Lakers????? Really. Yes, the 03 Spurs caught a few breaks, but they also beat the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

If you really think its similar for what Duncan did in 03 compared to Kobe the two titles then I give up. We are way too far apart to have a legit discussion.

1. If he didn't have the success in the playoffs in 09 and 10 then no he wasn't tremendously underrated. That's my point. The perceived talent of a player changes based on their success in the playoffs. Amare was consistently considered the better player until Gasol won a ring and even now I would bet most give the edge to Amare after he thrived as the #1 option and Gasol struggled in the playoffs. He was fairly rated then and now.

Jason Terry played great in the playoffs. Not better than Gasol but better than the talent gap between the two would project. I never said anything about Gasol being an average PF. Your strawman arguments are amusing. If you had faith in your convictions you could argue your POV without distorting mine.

2.

2010 Lakers vs 2003 Spurs

57-25 vs 60-22

Phil Jackson vs Gregg Popovich

3rd best O vs 7th best O

4th best D vs 3rd best D

You don't put those type of numbers without a talented team around you. There has never been a one man team that has won 60 games. It might not be condensed into 2 or 3 big name players but spread out and ignored in depth and defense. If the 04 Pistons flipped their strength from defense to offense yet remained at the same level overall they would be considered the most talented team of all time by the average fan.

[creepingdeath]

I never said it was a great tool. I just didn't want to copy and format box scores for hours all day. It's just a convenient way to show Hakeem's one man team had help. You are welcome to disregard it and look at the numbers yourself and opine why Game Score is biased in a way to make Hakeem look bad.

However low you consider Kobe to be in the best player in the game rankings just further makes his 5 championships more unlikely and thus more impressive. But I hope you are smart enough to recognize the difference between comparing players on the same team vs players on other teams.
I have a very high opinion of Kobe, although LA fans want to dispute that. But it's ridiculous to take a stat like gamescore and deduce a player's importance and his abilities from it. It is a certain tool which, put in the right context, helps us evaluate the impact of a player. But without actually watching the game, it gets useless. Let's assume Kobe/Dirk/any superstar gets doubled, has a very bad shooting night but his sidekick shows up and shoots very well from the field. And let's say the metrics equate into the sidekick having a greater gamescore. Without having watched the game, we don't know whether our hypothetical superstar had an overall bad game, a relatively bad game, made up for his bad shooting/stat sheet with intangibles, if his sidekick was just hitting open shots that were created by the team's number 1 in the first place etc.

Anyhow, we both know why you take gamescore and not PER: cause it doesn't suit your agenda in this case.

[gasolina]

An easier way is to look at the rest of Kobe, Dirk, and Timmy's teams and see which is worst (I'm willing to bet this was the agenda of the thread anyway :oldlol: )

C - Bynum
PF - Gasol
SF - Artest / Lamar Odom
SG - Shannon Brown
PG - Fish

vs.

C - Chandler
PF - Marion
SF - Peja or Stevenson
SG - Terry
PG - Kidd/Barea

vs.

C - Robinson
PF - Malik Rose
SF - Bowen / Stephen Jackson
SG - Manu
PG - Parker

SAfe to say Kobe's supporting cast is the best BY A MILE. It's not fair to use Kidd or David Robinsons "Top 50-ness" since they were shells of their former selves.

[BlueandGold]

Rick Barry (1975)
Isiah Thomas (1989 & 1990)
Tim Duncan (2005 & 2007)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Drik Nowitzki (2011)
Kevin Garnett (2008)
Bob Pettit (1958)
Dolph Schayes (1955)
Bill Walton (1977)
Wilt Chamberlain (1967...but I think Greer and Cunningham are top 50 or very very close)

Why is Isiah and Garnett in there? Just had to sneak in a Celtic huh? Allen and Pierce are definitely top50 and Isiah and Dumars.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I have a very high opinion of Kobe, although LA fans want to dispute that. But it's ridiculous to take a stat like gamescore and deduce a player's importance and his abilities from it. It is a certain tool which, put in the right context, helps us evaluate the impact of a player. But without actually watching the game, it gets useless. Let's assume Kobe/Dirk/any superstar gets doubled, has a very bad shooting night but his sidekick shows up and shoots very well from the field. And let's say the metrics equate into the sidekick having a greater gamescore. Without having watched the game, we don't know whether our hypothetical superstar had an overall bad game, a relatively bad game, made up for his bad shooting/stat sheet with intangibles, if his sidekick was just hitting open shots that were created by the team's number 1 in the first place etc.

Anyhow, we both know why you take gamescore and not PER: cause it doesn't suit your agenda in this case.

If you don't feel comfortable judging players on the box scores statistics they produce for games you personally did not watch then you don't have much to talk about on these forums. Unless you are an immortal time traveler with endless resources and a photographic memory of course. None of the presumed excuses you have offered up to excuse Hakeem apply any less than to Kobe.

I don't think you understand how moronic that sounds. Game Score is the equivalent to measuring profit by day and PER would be the equivalent to measuring profit by month (playoffs) or year (regular season). Its all the same measurement.

[creepingdeath]

If you don't feel comfortable judging players on the box scores statistics they produce for games you personally did not watch then you don't have much to talk about on these forums. Unless you are immortal time traveler with endless resources and a photographic memory of course. None of the presumed excuses you have offered up to excuse Hakeem apply any less than to Kobe.

I don't think you understand how moronic that sounds. Game Score is the equivalent to measuring profit by day and PER would be the equivalent to measuring profit by month (playoffs) or year (regular season). Its all the same measurement.
So repeat after me.. you honestly believe that:

- Kobe Bryant has never been the best or second best player in the league
- Kobe Bryant has only been twice the third best player in the league
- in 2009/2010, Pau Gasol was the 8th best and Kobe Bryant the 13th best player in the league

and as a bonus: Kevin Love was the 4th best NBA player last season

Cause either the above is true and PER, Gamescore etc. are all there is to basketball, or you're just cherrypicking stats to prop up your favourite player and bash other.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

So repeat after me.. you honestly believe that:

- Kobe Bryant has never been the best or second best player in the league
- Kobe Bryant has only been twice the third best player in the league
- in 2009/2010, Pau Gasol was the 8th best and Kobe Bryant the 13th best player in the league

and as a bonus: Kevin Love was the 4th best NBA player last season

Cause either the above is true and PER, Gamescore etc. are all there is to basketball, or you're just cherrypicking stats to prop up your favourite player and bash other.

As I said you are welcome to ignore PER or Game Score and just look at the box score. No matter what statistic I choose there will be just criticisms with it. There is no such thing as a perfect statistic. None of that changes the team effort that was on display when the Rockets took out the "more talented" Jazz.

[DMAVS41]

1. If he didn't have the success in the playoffs in 09 and 10 then no he wasn't tremendously underrated. That's my point. The perceived talent of a player changes based on their success in the playoffs. Amare was consistently considered the better player until Gasol won a ring and even now I would bet most give the edge to Amare after he thrived as the #1 option and Gasol struggled in the playoffs. He was fairly rated then and now.

Jason Terry played great in the playoffs. Not better than Gasol but better than the talent gap between the two would project. I never said anything about Gasol being an average PF. Your strawman arguments are amusing. If you had faith in your convictions you could argue your POV without distorting mine.

2.

2010 Lakers vs 2003 Spurs

57-25 vs 60-22

Phil Jackson vs Gregg Popovich

3rd best O vs 7th best O

4th best D vs 3rd best D

You don't put those type of numbers without a talented team around you. There has never been a one man team that has won 60 games. It might not be condensed into 2 or 3 big name players but spread out and ignored in depth and defense. If the 04 Pistons flipped their strength from defense to offense yet remained at the same level overall they would be considered the most talented team of all time by the average fan.

I'm not distorting your views at all. You can't just claim Gasol is only considered great because he won the title. Its about how he played. I am staying consistent in my views...you are not. You are acting like Gasol is only good because he won the title. That is simply not true. He was considered arguably the best PF last year because he put up 20/11/4 and came through in the big moments.

Also, if you are a big stats guy......Gasol outdid Kobe in a number of areas in the playoffs last year.

But that isn't the point. I think Gasol is better than Amare. Have for a long time.

We just disagree on a few things. I don't think the Suns last year or the Hawks had a better team. I don't think the Cavs supporting cast was as good as you do.


You are obviously incredibly biased. To the point that you are comparing Duncan's supporting cast in 03 to the 10 Lakers. That is absurd. Kobe's supporting cast last year was literally twice as good. Its not even remotely comparable. Anyone without a huge agenda would not debate that. Clearly you have one and are way too big of a Kobe stan to have a legit discussion.

[97 bulls]

Why is Isiah and Garnett in there? Just had to sneak in a Celtic huh? Allen and Pierce are definitely top50 and Isiah and Dumars.
Thomas also had rodman. Id even go so far to say that rodman was the best player on the pistons in 90. He won dpoy and avg a damn near a double double.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not distorting your views at all. You can't just claim Gasol is only considered great because he won the title. Its about how he played. I am staying consistent in my views...you are not. You are acting like Gasol is only good because he won the title. That is simply not true. He was considered arguably the best PF last year because he put up 20/11/4 and came through in the big moments.

Also, if you are a big stats guy......Gasol outdid Kobe in a number of areas in the playoffs last year.

But that isn't the point. I think Gasol is better than Amare. Have for a long time.

We just disagree on a few things. I don't think the Suns last year or the Hawks had a better team. I don't think the Cavs supporting cast was as good as you do.


You are obviously incredibly biased. To the point that you are comparing Duncan's supporting cast in 03 to the 10 Lakers. That is absurd. Kobe's supporting cast last year was literally twice as good. Its not even remotely comparable. Anyone without a huge agenda would not debate that. Clearly you have one and are way too big of a Kobe stan to have a legit discussion.

I have only referred to Gasol as a great player, an all star and a future HOFer. I don't know what else you want from me. A great run in the playoffs enhances a players perception of talent. This is not even remotely controversial. Look at Dirk before and after the playoffs this year. I never said the Suns are Hawks were better teams than the Lakers. I said they provide their #1 player with comparable supporting casts.

The Cavs supporting cast achieved nearly as much as the greatest 2-3 punch in history. I don't know what else you need to see after watching the Heat fail to recognize the merits of great shooing, defense and rebounding in a non threatening cast of characters. The Cavs were playing top 5 defense before LeBron had ever considered remotely trying on defense. That's supporting a superstar teammate. That's talent.

Aside from the huge pot calling the kettle black complex you have going for you, my massive personal character flaws are irrelevant to the arguments I have presented. You have consistently failed to address them instead offering Non sequiturs, personal attacks and strawman arguments.

[madmax]

I have only referred to Gasol as a great player, an all star and a future HOFer. I don't know what else you want from me. A great run in the playoffs enhances a players perception of talent. This is not even remotely controversial. Look at Dirk before and after the playoffs this year. I never said the Suns are Hawks were better teams than the Lakers. I said they provide their #1 player with comparable supporting casts.

The Cavs supporting cast achieved nearly as much as the greatest 2-3 punch in history. I don't know what else you need to see after watching the Heat fail to recognize the merits of great shooing, defense and rebounding in a non threatening cast of characters. The Cavs were playing top 5 defense before LeBron had ever considered remotely trying on defense. That's supporting a superstar teammate. That's talent.

Aside from the huge pot calling the kettle black complex you have going for you, my massive personal character flaws are irrelevant to the arguments I have presented. You have consistently failed to address them instead offering Non sequiturs, personal attacks and strawman arguments.

Cavs supporting casts are massively overrated here. Those teams lived and breathed through Lebron and his performances while being solely dependant on him. Not only that, but they were badly coached and inept defensively most of the time against more well rounded teams. If you wanna see a man on a mission trying to drag his scrubs past a much better team, then rewatch 09' EC final again...

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Cavs supporting casts are massively overrated here. Those teams lived and breathed through Lebron and his performances while being solely dependant on him. Not only that, but they were badly coached and inept defensively most of the time against more well rounded teams. If you wanna see a man on a mission trying to drag his scrubs past a much better team, then rewatch 09' EC final again...

The fact that the Magic got hot and couldn't miss from 3 doesn't invalidate the 82+ games preceding it. A great supporting cast complements a superstar well that doesn't mean it replaces him well if he goes out with injury or doesn't play well. How that became the definition of a supporting cast over time on these boards is beyond me.

[madmax]

The fact that the Magic got hot and couldn't miss from 3 doesn't invalidate the 82+ games preceding it. A great supporting cast complements a superstar well that doesn't mean it replaces him well if he goes out with injury or doesn't play well. How that became the definition of a supporting cast over time on these boards is beyond me.

don't you think there was a reason why Magic shot so well PARTICULARLY against Cavs and not the Lakers? Didn't that same "great" supporting personel fail short at providing defensive stops from Howard abusing them and Lewis with Turk going wild from deep?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

don't you think there was a reason why Magic shot so well PARTICULARLY against Cavs and not the Lakers? Didn't that same "great" supporting personel fail short at providing defensive stops from Howard abusing them and Lewis with Turk going wild from deep?

As I said before that series didn't erase the entire 82 games+ before it. It reminded me of the Mavs thrashing the Lakers this year actually. Nobody could guard Dirk (Howard) and what seemed like an endless demoralizing barrage of 3s rained down. Was Kobe's supporting cast suddenly untalented?

[DMAVS41]

I have only referred to Gasol as a great player, an all star and a future HOFer. I don't know what else you want from me. A great run in the playoffs enhances a players perception of talent. This is not even remotely controversial. Look at Dirk before and after the playoffs this year. I never said the Suns are Hawks were better teams than the Lakers. I said they provide their #1 player with comparable supporting casts.

The Cavs supporting cast achieved nearly as much as the greatest 2-3 punch in history. I don't know what else you need to see after watching the Heat fail to recognize the merits of great shooing, defense and rebounding in a non threatening cast of characters. The Cavs were playing top 5 defense before LeBron had ever considered remotely trying on defense. That's supporting a superstar teammate. That's talent.

Aside from the huge pot calling the kettle black complex you have going for you, my massive personal character flaws are irrelevant to the arguments I have presented. You have consistently failed to address them instead offering Non sequiturs, personal attacks and strawman arguments.

What? Your whole point is saying that Gasol is only considered what he is because of the titles. Part of that is true of course. However, you aren't applying that logic to every player. Specifically Kobe in this case.

You have already called the Lakers a top 3 supporting cast. You have already called Gasol a great player and a future HOF.

What is your point? You haven't made any to be honest.

I've just seen you throw out random crap throughout the thread. Please explain your point.

And no, Kobe's supporting cast in 09 and10 was significantly better than Duncan's in 03. How can you even dispute that?

Please explain to me your point? Because you have already stated that Kobe's supporting cast in both 09 and 10 were top 3. So if you rank them in the top 3...how could you possibly have an issue with someone ranking the at number 2 or number 1?

And how is having arguably the best supporting cast in the league not a stacked team?

[rmt]

I like your style Yao Ming's Foot. You're gonna find that elusive formula to get Kobe into GOAT status if it kills you :oldlol:

:oldlol: That's what he's trying to do but unfortunately, whatever stat/argument he uses: PER, PPG, MVPs, Finals MVPs is not supporting it.

[DMAVS41]

As I said before that series didn't erase the entire 82 games+ before it. It reminded me of the Mavs thrashing the Lakers this year actually. Nobody could guard Dirk (Howard) and what seemed like an endless demoralizing barrage of 3s rained down. Was Kobe's supporting cast suddenly untalented?

The regular season is often misleading. One great player can lead an average cast to a great regular season based on circumstances. See Kobe in 06. See Lebron in 09. See Dirk in 07.

Those teams just weren't nearly as good as their record. They all might have added 25 to 30 wins those years. Stop using regular season success as the barometer of a supporting cast.

The NBA has been and always will be a superstar driven league. You need multiple great players almost always to win. Lebron was missing that 2nd guy. Dirk has been missing that 2nd guy for a long time. Kobe had that 2nd guy in both 09 and 10. That matters a lot. Not to even mention coaching.

So again, I'm still so confused. You've come on this thread leading the charge that Kobe's teams weren't that good. Yet you called them top 3. So I ask again. Is Kobe having a top 3 supporting cast and the GOAT coach with one of the best 2nd options (the best imo) in the league not a "stacked" team?

What does it take to be "stacked"???? And again, if you don't like that word. Pick another.

[DMAVS41]

:oldlol: That's what he's trying to do but unfortunately, whatever stat/argument he uses: PER, PPG, MVPs, Finals MVPs is not supporting it.

That is what I don't get. He's using a bunch of metrics that rank Kobe nowhere near he wants to put him I guess.

We were have a reasonable discussion until he started claiming Duncan's 03 cast was similar to Kobe's in 10.

LOL....how is that even up for discussion? How is it not an accepted fact at this point that Kobe's cast was much better.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What? Your whole point is saying that Gasol is only considered what he is because of the titles. Part of that is true of course. However, you aren't applying that logic to every player. Specifically Kobe in this case.

You have already called the Lakers a top 3 supporting cast. You have already called Gasol a great player and a future HOF.

What is your point? You haven't made any to be honest.

That the talent level of guys like injured Bynum, Odom, Artest, Ariza and Fisher and yes Kobe and Pau is perceived to be enhanced post title so that any comparison of them after the fact is skewed by the fact that they did win and play well in the playoffs. That doesn't make them more talented or rare.


And no, Kobe's supporting cast in 09 and10 was significantly better than Duncan's in 03. How can you even dispute that?

The results of an 82 game season and an understanding that teams don't win 60 games with one credible player. They don't have top 10 offenses or top 5 defenses either.

The strength of a supporting cast should be measured by how well they complement their superstar not by how well they replace the superstar if hes not there.

Which teams had a supporting cast that better complemented their superstar in 03?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The regular season is often misleading. One great player can lead an average cast to a great regular season based on circumstances. See Kobe in 06. See Lebron in 09. See Dirk in 07.

Those teams just weren't nearly as good as their record. They all might have added 25 to 30 wins those years. Stop using regular season success as the barometer of a supporting cast.

The NBA has been and always will be a superstar driven league. You need multiple great players almost always to win. Lebron was missing that 2nd guy. Dirk has been missing that 2nd guy for a long time. Kobe had that 2nd guy in both 09 and 10. That matters a lot. Not to even mention coaching.

So again, I'm still so confused. You've come on this thread leading the charge that Kobe's teams weren't that good. Yet you called them top 3. So I ask again. Is Kobe having a top 3 supporting cast and the GOAT coach with one of the best 2nd options (the best imo) in the league not a "stacked" team?

What does it take to be "stacked"???? And again, if you don't like that word. Pick another.

I'm talking historically. You are talking yearly. You are stuck in the currently best player in the league debate. I'm talking legacy.

BTW Did you really just equate the 06 Lakers with the 07 Mavs and 09 Cavs? LOL

Record:

45-37 vs 67-15 vs 66-16

Defensive Ranking:

15th vs 3rd vs 5th

Offensive Ranking:

8th vs 2nd vs 4th

[DMAVS41]

That the talent level of guys like injured Bynum, Odom, Artest, Ariza and Fisher is enhanced post title so that any comparison of them after the fact is skewed by the fact that they did win and play well in the playoffs. That doesn't make them more talented or rare.



The results of an 82 game season and an understanding that teams don't win 60 games with one credible player. They don't have top 10 offenses or top 5 defenses either.

The strength of a supporting cast should be measured by how well they complement their superstar not by how well they replace the superstar if hes not there.

Which teams had a supporting cast that better complemented their superstar in 03?

If that is true, then why were the Lakers favored to win the title in 08? Before any of them had proven anything. Even Kobe was unproven as the man on a title team. As absurd as it was, there was plenty of BS talk about how Kobe couldn't get it done without Shaq. So why did everyone favor them to win the title?

How about 09? Again, unproven. Coming off a beat down in the biggest game of most of their careers in the finals a year before. So how were they over-rated after the fact when they were the favorite to win the title each year from 08 to really through this year. Only the Heat were bigger favorites this year.

03? A lot of teams. That supporting cast was rubbish. They didn't even compliment Duncan well. How that team won 60 games is beyond me.

Off the top of my head I'd take the Lakers, Mavs, Kings, Wolves, Nets, Blazers, and Pistons over what Duncan had in 03. Maybe more with some research.

[DMAVS41]

I'm talking historically. You are talking yearly. You are stuck in the currently best player in the league debate. I'm talking legacy.

I don't know what that means. What do you mean by that?

[catch24]

I'm talking historically. You are talking yearly. You are stuck in the currently best player in the league debate. I'm talking legacy.

Re-reading this thread its pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you even have a point in this discussion? What is your argument exactly?

[DMAVS41]

Re-reading this thread its pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you even have a point in this discussion? What is your argument exactly?

I've asked him that point blank. He keeps saying that Kobe's supporting casts are over-rated.

Yet he ranked them in the top 3 in his title years. And he also has said Gasol is a great player and a hall of famer.

So I don't get it either.

How is an elite player in the league having a top 3 supporting cast (the best supporting cast for a top 5 player)...the best or one of the best 2nd options and the GOAT coach not a great supporting cast?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't know what that means. What do you mean by that?

I'm comparing relative teammate talent to Bird, Jordan, Magic, Russell, Duncan any every other multiple champion legendary player.

You are stuck in 09-10 when everyone had to come up with a reason why LeBron was the "undeniably" the best player in the game yet Kobe kept stacking rings. LeBron didn't have a Gasol so its not fair. Now Kobe doesn't have a Wade or Bosh and the LeBron is still licking his wounds.

[tpols]

Off the top of my head I'd take the Lakers, Mavs, Kings, Wolves, Nets, Blazers, and Pistons over what Duncan had in 03. Maybe more with some research.
:roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

:roll: :roll:

Why?

Do people realize that Parker and Jackson were not very good? Do they realize that Manu was out of control. Malik Rose? D-Rob? Come on.

That was an average supporting cast that had no business winning 60 games or the title.

Hence its viewed upon as being on of the most impressive title runs ever. People forget that was supposed to be a rebuilding year. Nobody would have though anything if that team had won 48 games or something and lost in the first round.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

If that is true, then why were the Lakers favored to win the title in 08? Before any of them had proven anything. Even Kobe was unproven as the man on a title team. As absurd as it was, there was plenty of BS talk about how Kobe couldn't get it done without Shaq. So why did everyone favor them to win the title?

How about 09? Again, unproven. Coming off a beat down in the biggest game of most of their careers in the finals a year before. So how were they over-rated after the fact when they were the favorite to win the title each year from 08 to really through this year. Only the Heat were bigger favorites this year.

03? A lot of teams. That supporting cast was rubbish. They didn't even compliment Duncan well. How that team won 60 games is beyond me.

Off the top of my head I'd take the Lakers, Mavs, Kings, Wolves, Nets, Blazers, and Pistons over what Duncan had in 03. Maybe more with some research.

I assume you mean post Gasol trade and the answer to that is the Lakers were already near the top of the league in standings when they acquired him. Pau Gasol was an all star and Kwame Brown was garbage. Why wouldn't they be considered the favorites? They were certainly outperforming preseason expectations before the trade though.

They were just in the finals and there was an expectation of further development of Bynum and jelling of Pau in the offense. Once again why wouldn't they be considered the favorites?

[DMAVS41]

I'm comparing relative teammate talent to Bird, Jordan, Magic, Russell, Duncan any every other multiple champion legendary player.

You are stuck in 09-10 when everyone had to come up with a reason why LeBron was the "undeniably" the best player in the game yet Kobe kept stacking rings. LeBron didn't have a Gasol so its not fair. Now Kobe doesn't have a Wade or Bosh and the LeBron is still licking his wounds.

So this is a Lebron vs Kobe thread now? What?

I don't get that at all. But anyway, Lebron deserves a ton of criticism for playing the way he did in the finals. He deserves to get hammered for not winning a title with his team.

Bird definitely played on loaded teams. Magic definitely did. Russell definitely did. I think Kobe has played with more help than MJ overall....and I think Kobe has played with a ton more help than Duncan has.

Now we are getting to the point. You just want to count rings. People don't rank Kobe higher because of what kind of player he is. Its not about Kobe having more help than other star players. I think Bird played with every bit the same level of help Kobe has. That has nothing to do with why I think Bird was a better player.

You are confusing the issue. This is exactly why ring counting is so ****ing stupid. Its not the end all be all. Its important, but not nearly as important as you think. Kobe could have 8 rings and I'd still think Duncan is the better player because of what I saw and how they impacted the game.


Kobe kept stacking rings? He won 2. And he did not play any better than Lebron. In fact, Lebron played better. And he played better playing with less help. Nothing can change that.

What does 2011 have to do with 2010? I don't see the logic at all.

People like you will never grasp that it should be about the level of play of players and not just winning a ring...which happens to be a team accomplishment. And yes, there are varying degrees of credit for star players for winning. Putting Kobe in either 09 or 10 on the level of Duncan in 03 is a joke. Plain and simple.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why?

Do people realize that Parker and Jackson were not very good? Do they realize that Manu was out of control. Malik Rose? D-Rob? Come on.

That was an average supporting cast that had no business winning 60 games or the title.

Hence its viewed upon as being on of the most impressive title runs ever. People forget that was supposed to be a rebuilding year. Nobody would have though anything if that team had won 48 games or something and lost in the first round.

Which teams did they face in the playoffs with a more stacked roster?

[tpols]

The thing with the Spurs, is they have always been a dominant, title competing team despite not have the flashy scoring numbers that some other good teams[Kobe/Shaq Lakers, 08 Celtics, Kobe/Pau Lakers, mid-2000s Heat, etc.] have always had.. There like the pistons in a way. They win with their swarming defense, team-ball mentality, and serious no nonsense coach who always has them playing like professionals.. they aren't a showboating team where you give it to the superstar(s) and let them go to work like what we have seen with the Heat this year or with Kobe in pretty much all of his title runs[with Shaq and Pau].

They play the very definition of team basketball so the whole 'second option' argument doesn't apply to them as much as it does other teams because they have always been a old school style team playing in the new school, iso generation of basketball. Thats why when people look at the spurs they say theey're boring and it is also why they are surprised to see that they have always been a team capable of winning 60 games a year despite not EVER having the best names in basketball on their squads[aside from Duncan].

Just look at this year for further evidence.. Duncan COMPLETELY declines on both ends of the court and they were running the league for the majority of the season. And its not like they got a new 'superstar' to fill in for him.. they just know how to play team ball and execute on the basketbll court. You can chalk it up to great coaching, a professional attitude, no egos on the court, and great team play.. A team with the perfect intangibles where there are few left.

[DMAVS41]

Which teams did they face in the playoffs with a more stacked roster?

The Lakers and the Nets. Mavs with Dirk, but obviously they didn't have him for the remainder of the series.

[DMAVS41]

The thing with the Spurs, is they have always been a dominant, title competing team despite not have the flashy scoring numbers that some other good teams[Kobe/Shaq Lakers, 08 Celtics, Kobe/Pau Lakers, mid-2000s Heat, etc.] have always had.. There like the pistons in a way. They win with their swarming defense, team-ball mentality, and serious no nonsense coach who always has them playing like professionals.. they aren't a showboating team where you give it to the superstar(s) and let them go to work like what we have seen with the Heat this year or with Kobe in pretty much all of his title runs[with Shaq and Pau].

They play the very definition of team basketball so the whole 'second option' argument doesn't apply to them as much as it does other teams because they have always been a old school style team playing in the new school, iso generation of basketball. Thats why when people look at the spurs they say theey're boring and it is also why they are surprised to see that they have always been a team capable of winning 60 games a year despite not EVER having the best names in basketball on their squads[aside from Duncan].

Just look at this year for further evidence.. Duncan COMPLETELY declines on both ends of the court and they were running the league for the majority of the season. And its not like they got a new 'superstar' to fill in for him.. they just know how to play team ball and execute on the basketbll court. You can chalk it up to great coaching, a professional attitude, no egos on the court, and great team play.. A team with the perfect intangibles where there are few left.

I agree, but the 03 Spurs didn't really have the players. Now they have Parker and Manu as established great players. Jefferson is solid......george hill and some other good players.

That is a legit 55 plus win team.

The 03 team didn't have that. Parker, Jackson, and Manu were about as "green" as possible. They just weren't a very good team.

Nobody going into that year would have thought twice about the 03 Spurs doing exactly what the Timberwolves did. That was what was expected actually. And it was Duncan that was most responsible.

[catch24]

DMAVS41 - Aagree they (rings) can be overstated when it pertains to ranking some players on an all-time list. Context obviously matters. You won't see any legit poster on this board saying crap like, 'Kobe has a strong case for top 3-5 because of his titles'. Titles (or rings) are important but individual play will ALWAYS have more significance when you compare and contrast players. Especially on an all-time list.

Just off impact (no titles or Finals MVPs); however, where would you place Kobe? If its somewhere around #15-20 (where most would have him), by admission, wouldn't you be guilty of "overrating titles"?

Similar question I asked you in a thread about a few weeks ago, maybe you didn't see it? Would appreciate a response when you have time.

[tpols]

I agree, but the 03 Spurs didn't really have the players. Now they have Parker and Manu as established great players. Jefferson is solid......george hill and some other good players.

That is a legit 55 plus win team.

The 03 team didn't have that. Parker, Jackson, and Manu were about as "green" as possible. They just weren't a very good team.

Bro.. they won 58 games in BOTH of the years before 03. How the fvck is it far fetched that they could win 60 after they basically did it for two years in a row immediately prior?

They were a great coached, veteran, defensive minded squad that always finished amongst the best teams in the league year in and year out. To say, they weren't a very good team for those reasons is bullshit because they WERE a very good team in every single year surrounding the 03 title run.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS41 - Aagree they (rings) can be overstated when it pertains to ranking some players on an all-time list. Context obviously matters. You won't see any legit poster on this board saying crap like, 'Kobe has a strong case for top 3-5 because of his titles'. Titles (or rings) are important but individual play will ALWAYS have more significance when you compare and contrast players. Especially on an all-time list.

Just off impact (no titles or Finals MVPs); however, where would you place Kobe? If its somewhere around #15-20 (where most would have him), by admission, wouldn't you be guilty of "overrating titles"?

Similar question I asked you in a thread about a few weeks ago, maybe you didn't see it? Would appreciate a response when you have time.

I didn't see it. I've been asked this before and I'll say the same thing.

Top 15 all time. In fact, I have a 2nd list that I rank players based on my own standards and Kobe is right around 13th all time.

I have Kobe 10th all time the way people rank players here.

I'm not saying to ignore titles all together. I'm saying that worrying about the strength of supporting casts between guys like Duncan and Kobe just shifts the focus.

Yao is trying to claim that Kobe is better than a lot of players because he won 5 titles. That is his point. He wants to be able to rank Kobe over Bird and Hakeem and Duncan and Shaq because he won more titles. He wants to ignore the impact and level of play in favor of some weird formula to get Kobe higher than he should be.

[DMAVS41]

Bro.. they won 58 games in BOTH of the years before 03. How the fvck is it far fetched that they could win 60 after they basically did it for two years in a row immediately prior?

They were a great coached, veteran, defensive minded squad that always finished amongst the best teams in the league year in and year out. To say, they weren't a very good team for those reasons is bullshit because they WERE a very good team in every single year surrounding the 03 title run.

veteran? parker, manu, claxton, and jackson had no experience at all. what the **** are you talking about?

robinson had declined as well.

you clearly just weren't paying close attention to the nba in 03 or the spurs. veteran team? 4 of their 8 players had almost no experience whatsoever.

[tpols]

veteran? parker, manu, claxton, and jackson had no experience at all. what the **** are you talking about?

robinson had declined as well.

you clearly just weren't paying close attention to the nba in 03 or the spurs. veteran team? 4 of their 8 players had almost no experience whatsoever.
They had Tim Duncan, Greg Popovich, and David Robinson as veteran, championship-experience leaders.. and they also happened to be some of the most important pieces on the team.

Why do you always attack one part of a post without responding to the main point? Again.. how is it far fetched that the spurs were a 60 win contending team in 03 when they had been a 58 win team in the both of the two years prior?

[catch24]

I didn't see it. I've been asked this before and I'll say the same thing.

Top 15 all time. In fact, I have a 2nd list that I rank players based on my own standards and Kobe is right around 13th all time.

I have Kobe 10th all time the way people rank players here.

I'm not saying to ignore titles all together. I'm saying that worrying about the strength of supporting casts between guys like Duncan and Kobe just shifts the focus.

Yao is trying to claim that Kobe is better than a lot of players because he won 5 titles. That is his point. He wants to be able to rank Kobe over Bird and Hakeem and Duncan and Shaq because he won more titles. He wants to ignore the impact and level of play in favor of some weird formula to get Kobe higher than he should be.

Makes sense. Thanks for the quick response.

Yeah, if that's the case, then this is where I think your notion that "titles are overrated" applies. This Yao character is delusional. I don't even think he knows what he's trying to "prove"; his posts are all over the place. Kobe over Duncan and possibly Hakeem? I can maybe understand, but over Bird, Shaq? Absolutely not.