How is it in 2011 people are still doing the "Oh well Horry has ___ rings" thing?

[Kblaze8855]

Back in the old ISH days it was Kerr as well.

How the ****....does anyone...still feel that makes a legit point?

And even worse....people still have to explain why it doesnt make sense....

Do these people think they just thought it up every time?

If not...do they not see the exact same response that negates it every single time its said?

This is worse than commentators saying "The most dangerous guy is the one inbounding the ball". At least that is often the case...just mentioned too often.

This? I have to know....how is this still among the most common "Rings dont matter' arguments?

How does someone type out "Yea well Horry has ___" and feel they just made a good point?

For the longest time I thought it was a running joke. But it isnt. People honestly keep thinking it makes a point. I think I asked this a few years ago and assumed it would die down with time.

Here I am 10 years in having heard this argument 2-3 times a week(while avoiding most of the kinds of topics they are in as well). And it just doesnt end.

Really...the ****?

[NugzHeat3]

I legitimately feel Robert Horry is one of the more underrated players of the past 20 years.

But that's another story.

[christian1923]

Because Kobe stans think him having 5 rings automatically makes him better than players he is not better than, either all time (i.e. Larry Bird) or now (i.e. Dwyane Wade).

kobe bryant > larry bird

[Burgz]

a ring is a team accomplishment

that being said, none of the teams he won a ring with would have had a chance without him

one of the best role players in history

[christian1923]

In what universe? I suppose you think he's better than MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bill Russell and Shaq too? :roll:

no just bird

[Legends66NBA7]

I think it's because of the Kobe sidekick situation Kblaze.

When Kobe still didn't win as the man before 2009 and people were saying who is the better player between LeBron, Wade, etc... They always would Kobe and the main reasoning would be because of "3 rings".

Though he did have outstanding runs in 2001 and 2002, he was the 2nd option in all 3 of those championship runs. Yet, because he had 3 rings > better than the young up and comers like LeBron and co..

That's why people start saying

"Oh well in that case Robert Horry 7 rings > Karl Malone 0 rings, right ?"

or

"Robert Horry 7 rings > Michael Jordan 6 rings, because he has 1 more, right ?"

I think in the counter arguement, the person vaguely argues that ring is individual accomplishment and because Horry has won the most rings in Modern NBA history, most people would identify as the guy who "won 7 rings".

Not because he was the best player on any of them, but because he has them, anyways.

Does it prove a point ? No, it a vague, cliche, counter arguement.

Anyone can debunk it if they can break it down. For me it's just compare the leaders of championship team, compare players year by year, etc... See which playes is on who's level... Not bring the standard role player as X amount of rings...

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Because Kobe stans think him having 5 rings automatically makes him better than players he is not better than, either all time (i.e. Larry Bird) or now (i.e. Dwyane Wade).

It's not just having rings. It's about winning. The object of the game is to win. You think Wade would rather shoot 53% in the finals and lose or shoot 42% and win? If rings didn't matter why the hell did LeBron leave the team that drafted him and the city that worshiped him and become the most hated man in the NBA? He wants to win. That's what's important. Are there other factors that contribute to a player's greatness? of course. But those things mean nothing if they don't translate into obtaining the ultimate prize: and NBA championship.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's not even a good point in the context. Is Robert Horry considered better than Karl Malone no, but is one of the most revered role players of all time? Is he not considered better than literally thousands of role players with "better numbers"?

[Deuce Bigalow]

It's not just having rings. It's about winning. The object of the game is to win. You think Wade would rather shoot 53% in the finals and lose or shoot 42% and win? If rings didn't matter why the hell did LeBron leave the team that drafted him and the city that worshiped him and become the most hated man in the NBA? He wants to win. That's what's important. Are there other factors that contribute to a player's greatness? of course. But those things mean nothing if they don't translate into obtaining the ultimate prize: and NBA championship.

:applause:

[christian1923]

Well, that's slightly better then. I guess. :ohwell:

Kobe Bryant definitely has a good case, You make it sound like that's an outrageous statement.. kobe is top 10 already and he's only 33

[King24]

lol @ these morons.

That argument is often used in discussions that have nothing to do with Bryant.

Idiots making it about Kobe only. :oldlol:

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

When did I say rings didn't matter? :rolleyes: Re-read my post please.

You said "Oh Robert Horry has 7 rings." to try and devalue the importance of them when someone mentioned that Kobe has 5 rings. That's understating their value.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe is arguably top 10, he's declining and getting older, and is unlikely to win another ring as "the man" unless something unforseen happens.

kobe is top 10, its not even arguable

[Deuce Bigalow]

It is most definitely arguable.

for haters, I know
for knowledgeable people, it isnt

[Andrei89]

Back in the old ISH days it was Kerr as well.

How the ****....does anyone...still feel that makes a legit point?

And even worse....people still have to explain why it doesnt make sense....

Do these people think they just thought it up every time?

If not...do they not see the exact same response that negates it every single time its said?

This is worse than commentators saying "The most dangerous guy is the one inbounding the ball". At least that is often the case...just mentioned too often.

This? I have to know....how is this still among the most common "Rings dont matter' arguments?

How does someone type out "Yea well Horry has ___" and feel they just made a good point?

For the longest time I thought it was a running joke. But it isnt. People honestly keep thinking it makes a point. I think I asked this a few years ago and assumed it would die down with time.

Here I am 10 years in having heard this argument 2-3 times a week(while avoiding most of the kinds of topics they are in as well). And it just doesnt end.

Really...the ****?

Cuz Kobe stans think Kobe is better than Lebron cuz he has 5 rings

[Deuce Bigalow]

Fixed.

Im not dick riding on Kobe here

[Deuce Bigalow]

Cuz Kobe stans think Kobe is better than Lebron cuz he has 5 rings

lol, lebron 0 ringssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[Legends66NBA7]

kobe is top 10, its not even arguable

According to who ?

Did 6.8 Billion people in world come together and say it ? No.

And even so, these lists will always vary. Everything is arguable.

[christian1923]

Fixed.

Why you hate on kobe? You should appreciate his greatness, doesnt come around that often

[catch24]

Fixed.

If Duncan and Shaq are inarguable top 10 players, then so is Kobe.

[cteach111]

i generally have horry in my top 10 because he was a winner like bill russell. The 7 rings is a testament to that as opposed to a guy like barkley.

[cteach111]

i generally have horry in my top 10 because he was a winner like bill russell. The 7 rings is a testament to that as opposed to a guy like barkley.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

:facepalm I didn't say that in my post, first of all.

From about 5 minutes ago


Robert Horry 7 rings. Derek Fisher 5 rings.

Robert Horry>Derek Fisher=Kobe Bryant


Secondly, when I say that, I use it sarcastically when people act as if the number of rings you have determines your place on the GOAT list without considering context.

No one does that with Kobe though. Kobe has more rings than Duncan, Bird, Wilt and Shaq but there are people who won't rank him over those players. People rank Kobe in the Top 10 because of what he did en route to winning those rings. Not just winning them.

[Kblaze8855]

That argument is often used in discussions that have nothing to do with Bryant.

Idiots making it about Kobe only.

I dont know why everything gets Kobe related. People say this bullshit about a lot of players. But Kobe has been mentioned so this is now a Kobe topic and.......**** it.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's not a good point at all. It's usually said sarcastically when people say something asinine like "Kobe>Wilt because he has more rings!" or "Kobe is better than LeBron right now (2011) because he has 5 rings!"

When Kobe is retired the number of rings he has will be a large factor in his standing among the legendary players in NBA history. I don't understand why this is controversial. Its the same reason why Robert Horry is the most highly regarded 7pts pg 4.5 rbs player in NBA History.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Right now LeBron is better and that's not even debatable. No one can deny that Kobe has had a better career, but he's played a lot longer. Kobe didn't win "5 rings" last year, and LeBron got a closer to one last year and had a better regular season and overall postseason last year.

cool

0 Rings his whole career

[Deuce Bigalow]

If Duncan and Shaq are inarguable top 10 players, then so is Kobe.

and didnt 70% of fans on ESPN vote Kobe as the player of the decade in 2009

[Legends66NBA7]

It's not just having rings. It's about winning. The object of the game is to win. You think Wade would rather shoot 53% in the finals and lose or shoot 42% and win? If rings didn't matter why the hell did LeBron leave the team that drafted him and the city that worshiped him and become the most hated man in the NBA? He wants to win. That's what's important. Are there other factors that contribute to a player's greatness? of course. But those things mean nothing if they don't translate into obtaining the ultimate prize: and NBA championship.

Yeah and who wins ? Teams win.

Individually, you have to guage how well they performed in those championship runs and finals runs. Just because the team didn't win does not erase what a player contributed to his team. You can't just say they mean nothing when they actually went all-out to win games. You can't say they didn't perform to win. It's other around or the other team just pulled it out. It takes nothing away from the best individual on either side.

The ultimate prize is won by teams and the leader/best performer gets the lion share of that credit for those championship.

[christian1923]

Right now LeBron is better and that's not even debatable. No one can deny that Kobe has had a better career, but he's played a lot longer. Kobe didn't win "5 rings" last year, and LeBron got a closer to one last year and had a better regular season and overall postseason last year.

And he completly choked away the finals last year

[Deuce Bigalow]

And he completly choked away the finals last year

:oldlol:

owned

[Legends66NBA7]

and didnt 70% of fans on ESPN vote Kobe as the player of the decade in 2009

That list had LeBron James #2. Kobe was coming off a championship season.

How much credit are you going to give that ?

Shaq and Duncan were better in that decade than Kobe was.

[Pursuer]

I don't see what's the issue here. You guys might think that winning 7 rings is an accident, well I don't. Everything happens due to actions and circumstances, and even though circumstances have not been particularly pleasant for whoever you're mad about(may it be LeBron, Wade, Rose, etc.), maybe their actions just haven't been as influencing. What I mean, is that Horry earned those 7 rings by making big time contributions in his role to those 7 championship teams and if people always give examples of Morrison>LeBron because of rings, then it just seems ignorant. I'm not saying Morrison is better, of course not, what I mean is that you have to look and championships as a certain level of understanding winning basketball. It's no coincidence Iverson didn't win a championship and it's no coincidence Duncan won 4.

[Deuce Bigalow]

That list had LeBron James #2. Kobe was coming off a championship season.

How much credit are you going to give that ?

Shaq and Duncan were better in that decade than Kobe was.

Shaq and Duncan?

Kobe helped Shaq win 3 of them, the won another by himself, and shaq was irrelavant since 07
Duncan, just no

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Yeah and who wins ? Teams win.

Individually, you have to guage how well they performed in those championship runs and finals runs. Just because the team didn't win does not erase what a player contributed to his team. You can't just say they mean nothing when they actually went all-out to win games. You can't say they didn't perform to win. It's other around or the other team just pulled it out. It takes nothing away from the best individual on either side.

The ultimate prize is won by teams and the leader/best performer gets the lion share of that credit for those championship.

Yes teams do win. Winning is a team accomplishment. And we are in agreement as far as the best players getting most of the credit.

But we are speaking from a fan's perspective who look at stats, margins and others things. I'm not saying to not give guys credit when they play well and lose, but in THEIR minds, that's what matters most. You think Wade sat at home after Game 6 last year and said, "Yeah, I shot over 50% and averaged this many points." No. He says, "Damn man we lost and I want to win."

I mean, even when playing in a pickup game. I'm sure you don't care about how much you score or how well you shoot as long as it doesn't affect your chance to win. I know I don't.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I forget, what did Kobe do against the Mavericks last year? Who got farther in the playoffs last year?

they both played Dallas and lost

Lebron had a 27/7/5 teammate
Kobe had a 13/9/4 teammate

[christian1923]

I forget, what did Kobe do against the Mavericks last year? Who got farther in the playoffs last year?

at least he wasn't the third leading scorer on his own team -_- thats an embarrassment

[chazzy]

It's almost as old as the Scalabrine jokes RRR still uses :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

That's wonderful. Horry is not even top 500 all time.

#202 right now

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/horryro01.html

:confusedshrug:

Robert Horry is the absolute posterchild for rankings being influenced by rings instead of "production". Why the clowns with ringless heros continue to cite him as some sort of counterpoint is beyond me.

[Deuce Bigalow]

At least the Heat didn't get swept.

Lakers didnt have Wade

[christian1923]

At least the Heat didn't get swept.

thank god for wade

[Deuce Bigalow]

LeBron was the best player in game 1. That's one win right there.

if you actually watched the game, Wade hit all the big shots in the 4th
Wade was the better player
go back yourself and check the 4th quarter highlights of gm 1

[B]

kobe is top 10, its not even arguableAnd he has the rings to prove it.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I did watch the game, and no Wade wasn't better. Shut up already.

go check the highlights, Wade was the man in gm 1 in the 4th

[King24]

I dont know why everything gets Kobe related. People say this bullshit about a lot of players. But Kobe has been mentioned so this is now a Kobe topic and.......**** it.
Yeah, moronic Kobe haters about to ruin yet another thread. Shocking.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYr-xMNTd-0

there you go

[Deuce Bigalow]

I saw the game you moron. LeBron was better in game 1; Wade was better by far over the whole 6 games. jesus

there you go

[Yao Ming's Foot]

#202 right now

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/horryro01.html

:confusedshrug:

Robert Horry is the absolute posterchild for rankings being influenced by rings instead of "production". Why the clowns with ringless heros continue to cite him as some sort of counterpoint is beyond me.

Anyone care to explain?

[AlphaWolf24]

I think it's because of the Kobe sidekick situation Kblaze.

When Kobe still didn't win as the man before 2009 and people were saying who is the better player between LeBron, Wade, etc... They always would Kobe and the main reasoning would be because of "3 rings".

Though he did have outstanding runs in 2001 and 2002, he was the 2nd option in all 3 of those championship runs. Yet, because he had 3 rings > better than the young up and comers like LeBron and co..

That's why people start saying

"Oh well in that case Robert Horry 7 rings > Karl Malone 0 rings, right ?"

or

"Robert Horry 7 rings > Michael Jordan 6 rings, because he has 1 more, right ?"

I think in the counter arguement, the person vaguely argues that ring is individual accomplishment and because Horry has won the most rings in Modern NBA history, most people would identify as the guy who "won 7 rings".

Not because he was the best player on any of them, but because he has them, anyways.

Does it prove a point ? No, it a vague, cliche, counter arguement.

Anyone can debunk it if they can break it down. For me it's just compare the leaders of championship team, compare players year by year, etc... See which playes is on who's level... Not bring the standard role player as X amount of rings...


So much Fail...

Kobe was by far the lakers clear cut first option in the most important part of teh game for the first 3 peat(think about that)

Kobe was the one with the ball in his hands with the game on the line...

Kobe was the first team all defense and one of the premiere players in the NBA....who had a work ethic 2nd to none....he was the one setting the example for his temates working on his 24/7...

Kobe was a superstar by 2000...and as a superstar on your team it's your responsibility to keep track of the pulse and your team is a direct reflection of you!...that's why the "horry" staement holds no weight....Kobe was always in the star position with the weight of his team on His shoulders in crunchtime...

Horry was never in the position of bieng the star who has all the responsibility...Kobe has....and his teams winning is a direct reflection of him and his work.....because he has always been the main man in the most important part of the game....and he faced it head on since he was 18 years old.....


at 32 years old Kobe has put together 7 playoff runs that led to Finals appearances of


2000 playoffs Kobe = 21PPG 4reb 4ast Championship 51% TS%
2001 playoffs Kobe = 29PPG 7reb 6ast Championship 55% TS%
2002 playoffs Kobe = 26PPG 5reb 4ast Championship 51% TS%
2004 playoffs Kobe = 25 PPG 6reb 5ast Lost in da Championship 56% TS%
2008 playoffs Kobe = 30PPG 5ast 5reb Lost in Da Championship 57% TS%
2009 playoffs Kobe = 30PPG 5ast 5reb Championship 56% TS%
2010 playoffs Kobe = 29PPG 6reb 5ast Championship 56% TS%

to look at these 6 Runs and say (uhh...but Horry!)....(uh..he was the 2nd option)....shows how much lack of understanding one has of the game...

The man was the best player in 2001, and was the lakers MAIN WEAPON in the 4th quarters (most important time) for easily 2 outta the 3 first 3 peat

even MJ didn't have that many quality Final runs at 32

1991 playoffs MJ = 31PPG 6reb 8ast Championship 60% TS%
1992 playoffs MJ = 34PPG 6reb 5ast Championship 57% TS%
1993 playoffs MJ = 35PPG 6reb 6ast Championship 55% TS%:lol


Give me Kobe all day everyday and twice on sunday

[Rake2204]

I mean, even when playing in a pickup game. I'm sure you don't care about how much you score or how well you shoot as long as it doesn't affect your chance to win. I know I don't.
Maybe off-topic, but I can't say I'm with you there. I don't play basketball just to win. Winning is a large part of the fun. But if that was all there was to it, I would have tired of the game 20 years ago. If I played in a pick-up game and did nothing of substance - maybe grabbed a rebound or two, missed a layup but we still won (and continued to win with my level of play like that all night). . .I wouldn't be feeling great about those victories.

On the playground, I want to excel, do great things and win. And sometimes, if my team loses at the playground but I had a nasty dunk, I'm okay with that. The dunk's going to outlast the loss. I'm just not sure the playground thing ties into anything NBA related (then again, I bet there's at least some NBA players who've felt like the playground version of me). Generally speaking though, pick-up basketball is vastly different from organized ball in terms of what I'm looking to accomplish. Even in organized ball, as successful as my team may have been, I can't say I would have enjoyed it nearly as much if I were a bench player as opposed to a upper level guy.


But we are speaking from a fan's perspective who look at stats, margins and others things. I'm not saying to not give guys credit when they play well and lose, but in THEIR minds, that's what matters most. You think Wade sat at home after Game 6 last year and said, "Yeah, I shot over 50% and averaged this many points." No. He says, "Damn man we lost and I want to win."

I think this is all true, but I'm not sure exactly how it ties in to how great a player is ranked. Is it your belief they want to win only because it'll mean they're great? I think they want to win because it's satisfying to be a champion. Fans surely look at stats, but sometimes greatness is greatness. For instance, I'll never need a championship from LeBron James to know he's great. He's already amongst the greatest in my opinion. Winning a ring on a stacked team doesn't really alter my view of the big fella.

[swi7ch]

Robert "Coattail Rider" Horry

[Legends66NBA7]

even MJ didn't have that many quality Final runs at 32

1991 playoffs MJ = 31PPG 6reb 8ast Championship 60% TS%
1992 playoffs MJ = 34PPG 6reb 5ast Championship 57% TS%
1993 playoffs MJ = 35PPG 6reb 6ast Championship 55% TS%:lol


What does MJ's runs have to do with Kobe's runs ? Oh right, everything apparently.....

[AlphaWolf24]

What does MJ's runs have to do with Kobe's runs ? Oh right, everything apparently.....


what did Kobe have to do with this thread??....

oh but i bring up MJ and all of a sudden the "JLP" shows up??


silly stan......




that was 2EZ





















next

[Legends66NBA7]

..

Kobe and Horry share a common hold here.

I've seen on virtually every site the Horry arguement brought up with Kobe.

Stan somewhere else. Tell me when was Jordan the 2nd option. We would love to hear it.

[AlphaWolf24]

Maybe off-topic, but I can't say I'm with you there. I don't play basketball just to win. Winning is a large part of the fun. But if that was all there was to it, I would have tired of the game 20 years ago. If I played in a pick-up game and did nothing of substance - maybe grabbed a rebound or two, missed a layup but we still won (and continued to win with my level of play like that all night). . .I wouldn't be feeling great about those victories.

On the playground, I want to excel, do great things and win. And sometimes, if my team loses at the playground but I had a nasty dunk, I'm okay with that. The dunk's going to outlast the loss. I'm just not sure the playground thing ties into anything NBA related (then again, I bet there's at least some NBA players who've felt like the playground version of me). Generally speaking though, pick-up basketball is vastly different from organized ball in terms of what I'm looking to accomplish. Even in organized ball, as successful as my team may have been, I can't say I would have enjoyed it nearly as much if I were a bench player as opposed to a upper level guy.


I think this is all true, but I'm not sure exactly how it ties in to how great a player is ranked. Is it your belief they want to win only because it'll mean they're great? I think they want to win because it's satisfying to be a champion. Fans surely look at stats, but sometimes greatness is greatness. For instance, I'll never need a championship from LeBron James to know he's great. He's already amongst the greatest in my opinion. Winning a ring on a stacked team doesn't really alter my view of the big fella.



:lol ok...but as the star of your team with that mentality ?...if the star player has the mentality of "oh well if we lose it's ok.....just as long as everyone get's his" then the team will Fail..

we are talking about the best players on the team....and what seperates them from thier peers....and that is winning.

Lebron's talent makes him a star alone.....people want to see if hehas the mindset wich is exactly the opposite of what you described....


is he a great player?...sure....but does he have the mindset to seperate him from the other great players of his generation and beyond?....meh?....



LBJ reminds me alot of Nique in the late 80's....he was very popular and the most exciting player in the NBA (along with MJ...slight edge to Nique in the mid 80's though)....but he seemed content with doing a highlight reel rather then winning...

now he is still remembered as a great player...but no where near the level of the true greats.

but, like you said....it's about how you feel.....some want satisfactory on them...some sacrifice for the team......

but to winners goes the spoils.....

[Dizzle-2k7]

lamest argument in the book and anyone who uses it should be banned

[Rake2204]

:lol ok...but as the star of your team with that mentality ?...if the star player has the mentality of "oh well if we lose it's ok.....just as long as everyone get's his" then the team will Fail..

we are talking about the best players on the team....and what seperates them from thier peers....and that is winning.

Lebron's talent makes him a star alone.....people want to see if hehas the mindset wich is exactly the opposite of what you described....


is he a great player?...sure....but does he have the mindset to seperate him from the other great players of his generation and beyond?....meh?....



LBJ reminds me alot of Nique in the late 80's....he was very popular and the most exciting player in the NBA (along with MJ...slight edge to Nique in the mid 80's though)....but he seemed content with doing a highlight reel rather then winning...

now he is still remembered as a great player...but no where near the level of the true greats.

but, like you said....it's about how you feel.....some want satisfactory on them...some sacrifice for the team......

but to winners goes the spoils.....
True enough. Surely there's a mix and concoction that goes in to defining a great player. Just as the Horry Argument is ridiculous, I also find the Russell Argument to be just as so (Russell Argument = Amount of Rings for Best Player on Team Directly Correlates to Amount of Greatness of Best Individual Player in Comparison to Other Best Players).

Not to open up a horrible can of worms, but this old debate kind of reminds me of certain religious arguments that pop up every now and again. Each side often has valid points but things get out of hand when extremists take their stance too far (the Horry Argument). I've just never enjoyed hearing the list of players who hadn't won championships automatically having their skill dubbed as being less so than any other good player who has won a ring. In terms of measuring the ability of a player in comparison to another, I feel referencing their team's championships to be an overrated attribute.

[pauk]

hm ok then... lets compare kobe to one of his own statures where most of their rings were earned as sidekicks (or u can call it 2nd best player in the team)....


Pippen > Kobe
Havlicek > Kobe
Sam Jones > Kobe

[Heavincent]

It is most definitely arguable.

Not really. It's pretty irrational to put him outside of the top 10.

[pauk]

Not really. It's pretty irrational to put him outside of the top 10.

why is it irrational?

1. jordan
2. wilt
3. kareem
4. russell
5. shaq
6. bird
7. magic
8. oscar
9. hakeem
10. duncan
11. here you can argue jerry west, moses malone, julius erving, john havlicek.. bob cousy... and ofcourse kobe bryant...

[RRR3]

why is it irrational?

1. jordan
2. wilt
3. kareem
4. russell
5. shaq
6. bird
7. magic
8. oscar
9. hakeem
10. duncan
11. jerry west
12. moses malone

13. here you can argue julius erving.. john havlicek.. bob cousy... and ofcourse kobe bryant...
Stop hating on Magic. And Cousy is nowhere close to everyone else you listed.

[Heavincent]

why is it irrational?

1. jordan
2. wilt
3. kareem
4. russell
5. shaq
6. bird
7. magic
8. oscar
9. hakeem
10. duncan
11. here you can argue julius erving.. jerry west, moses malone, john havlicek.. bob cousy... and ofcourse kobe bryant...

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

[Heavincent]

No it's not irrational considering many lists with Kobe in the top 10 have him tenth.

Yeah, and? Tenth is still top 10 you know.

10 is the absolute lowest you can have him. Any lower than 10 is just stupid.

Enough beating around the bush, where would you put Kobe?

[chips93]

I think it's because of the Kobe sidekick situation Kblaze.

When Kobe still didn't win as the man before 2009 and people were saying who is the better player between LeBron, Wade, etc... They always would Kobe and the main reasoning would be because of "3 rings".

Though he did have outstanding runs in 2001 and 2002, he was the 2nd option in all 3 of those championship runs. Yet, because he had 3 rings > better than the young up and comers like LeBron and co..

That's why people start saying

"Oh well in that case Robert Horry 7 rings > Karl Malone 0 rings, right ?"

or

"Robert Horry 7 rings > Michael Jordan 6 rings, because he has 1 more, right ?"

I think in the counter arguement, the person vaguely argues that ring is individual accomplishment and because Horry has won the most rings in Modern NBA history, most people would identify as the guy who "won 7 rings".

Not because he was the best player on any of them, but because he has them, anyways.

Does it prove a point ? No, it a vague, cliche, counter arguement.

Anyone can debunk it if they can break it down. For me it's just compare the leaders of championship team, compare players year by year, etc... See which playes is on who's level... Not bring the standard role player as X amount of rings...

this is what kind of irks me about the whole, bill simmons style ,'how may rings as the alpha dog/leader/best player' idea that a lot of people use as their main factor in where a player stands historically.

people neglect the context in which players win their rings.

being a leader of a championship team is a great accomplishment, and if you're an all-time great player and you don win one, then you were very unlucky. but the context is very important. being the leader of one title team doesnt equal being the leader of any other title team.

so to say well kobe has 2 rings as the man, same as Olajuwon, and then to say that the rings that each of the player earned are equal is wrong.

take billups for example, he was the leader of the 04 piston team, but his ring as 'the man' isnt the same as dirk's ring from this year. some may say that the pistons are an aberration, but they contended for half a decade, so they obviously werent an aberration.

what im trying to say is that just because two guys both have the same amount of championships as 'the man', doesnt make the accomplishment of those rings equal.

[pauk]

Stop hating on Magic. And Cousy is nowhere close to everyone else you listed.

larry & magic were neck and neck... but i take LARRY ahead mainly because actually he was a BETTER INDIVIDUAL PLAYER :confusedshrug:


and cousy is nowhere close to everyone else i listed??? oh really?

COUSY
6 x Champion
1 x MVP
2 x All-Star MVP
13 x All-Star
10 x All-NBA 1st team
the pioneer of the sport and the first traditional point guard...

thats CLOSE enough

[pauk]

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

ok... let me see your top 10... come on... waiting...

want to see who the **** you throwed out of the TOP 10 to squeeze in kobe with your biasness...

rank these 10 players how u wish but all these 10 players had better careers than Kobe:

larry
oscar
jordan
wilt
kareem
shaq
duncan
hakeem
russell
magic

[D.J.]

I legitimately feel Robert Horry is one of the more underrated players of the past 20 years.

But that's another story.


He's not underrated. He was a role player. A respectable role player that hit clutch shots.

[artificial]

I never saw this thread becoming a Kobe vs Lebron thing.

F"ck, it's like a virus or something. As soon as you see either of them mentioned, you know thread is doomed to become a pile of rotten crap.


Anyway, yeah, Horry is overused. Thing is, people often bring up the "rings don't matter that much" argument, and Horry has become the abbreviation of that phrase.

[Heavincent]

ok... let me see your top 10... come on... waiting...

want to see who the **** you throwed out of the TOP 10 to squeeze in kobe with your biasness...

rank these 10 players how u wish but all these 10 players had better careers than Kobe:

larry
oscar
jordan
wilt
kareem
shaq
duncan
hakeem
russell
magic

I'd rank Kobe above Hakeem, Oscar, Duncan, and it's really close between him and Magic. He's not too far behind Bird either. He'll probably pass him by the time his career is over.

[D.J.]

Duncan and Olajuwon are definitely above Kobe. Both were extremely dominant in their primes, especially defensively. Both also won titles with scrub teammates. Duncan's first title was with an aging Robinson, Mario Elie, Avery Johnson, and Jaren Jackson. His second title was with a near crippled Robinson, rookie Ginobili, second year Parker, Stephen Jackson, and Speedy Claxton. Dream won a title with a rookie Cassell, second year Horry, Vernon Maxwell, Otis Thorpe and Carl Herrera. Dream got some help the second title with Drexler, but his teammates were for the most part scrubs.

Kobe won titles with either Shaq, or Gasol/Bynum and Odom.

[Doctor Rivers]

thank god for wade

+1000

[Heavincent]

Players I believe have a good chance to surpass Kobe on the GOAT list:
LeBron James
Dwyane Wade


Lebron - Small chance.
Wade - No chance what so ever.

[AlphaWolf24]

True enough. Surely there's a mix and concoction that goes in to defining a great player. Just as the Horry Argument is ridiculous, I also find the Russell Argument to be just as so (Russell Argument = Amount of Rings for Best Player on Team Directly Correlates to Amount of Greatness of Best Individual Player in Comparison to Other Best Players).

Not to open up a horrible can of worms, but this old debate kind of reminds me of certain religious arguments that pop up every now and again. Each side often has valid points but things get out of hand when extremists take their stance too far (the Horry Argument). I've just never enjoyed hearing the list of players who hadn't won championships automatically having their skill dubbed as being less so than any other good player who has won a ring. In terms of measuring the ability of a player in comparison to another, I feel referencing their team's championships to be an overrated attribute.


True....and since you brought up religion....let's use that thought process and look at the ultimate "team sport" ..."Group Warfare"...in other words "War"....


Do we really look back and celabrate individual accolades of the Losing country?..i mean the Japenese kill/Ratio was far greater then the U.S. in the battle of Iwo jima....meaning per single soldier the japenese had far more kill's then the single U.S. soldier...but we never hear how great the japenese soldier performed outside the few and far betweeen....

It was the U.S. who ended up taking the Southern Islands of Japan...it the U.S. who won the War and Took over Mainland Japan...it was the U.S. for whatever reason won!...through hardwork or Luck or whatever you want to call it......U.S. won...the U.S can claim to have the better warrior....even though complex stats prove the japenese had a better single one man warrior...But it is the U.S.A that is veiwed as having the greatest Military with the best troops.....

to the winner goes the spoils.....in the ultimate game....."war".....and to petty games in comparison "basketball"

and a great leader would only worrying about winning the war...not winning the "individual acomplishment"....do whatever it takes to win the war...that is all that matters....because if you lose....well......nothing you did proir would matter anyways.



I think that is how it works...and rightfully so.

[Doctor Rivers]

Lebron - Small chance.
Wade - No chance what so ever.

If the Heat win a championship next season he's right there with kobe

[D.J.]

Players I believe have a good chance to surpass Kobe on the GOAT list:
LeBron James
Dwyane Wade


Neither have a chance. LeBron has played 8 seasons and has no rings. Kobe had 3 after 8 seasons. Wade is at the tail end of his prime right now. He'll be 30 in January.

[RRR3]

Lebron - Small chance.
Wade - No chance what so ever.
First of all, way to ignore the first part of my post. Secondly, the Heat are in a great position right now and if LeBron wins a few FMVP's and keeps up his current production for a while, he'll easily surpass Kobe. Wade is injury prone, but is better than you're giving him credit for. His best playoff run is already better than anything Kobe has done.

[Doctor Rivers]

His best playoff run is already better than anything Kobe has done.

totally agree

[Heavincent]

His best playoff run is already better than anything Kobe has done.

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

Absolutely not.

[Doctor Rivers]

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

Absolutely not.

2006 playoffs >>

[Heavincent]

:facepalm

Kobe in 09 > Wade in 06
Kobe in 10 > Wade in 06

Sorry.

[Doctor Rivers]

Wade didn't shoot 6-24 in the last game of the finals iirc. :lol

this

Wade provided uninterrupted excellence

[Heavincent]

Wade didn't shoot 6-24 in the last game of the finals iirc. :lol

Really? You're gonna go with that really stock and flawed argument? I expected more from you.

How about 09? You can't just scream "6/24! 6/24!" for that year.

[christian1923]

Let's see lebron score 30 points in a finals game before we start saying "if lebron wins a few finals mvps"

[RRR3]

Really? You're gonna go with that really stock and flawed argument? I expected more from you.

How about 09? You can't just scream "6/24! 6/24!" for that year.

How is it flawed? Kobe wasn't that great in the 2010 finals, in fact he was subpar for his standards. 09 he was great, but Wade's 06 finals are among the best finals performances in NBA history.

[Doctor Rivers]

Really? You're gonna go with that really stock and flawed argument? I expected more from you.

How about 09? You can't just scream "6/24! 6/24!" for that year.

06 > 09

[Doctor Rivers]

larry & magic were neck and neck... but i take LARRY ahead mainly because actually he was a BETTER INDIVIDUAL PLAYER :confusedshrug:


and cousy is nowhere close to everyone else i listed??? oh really?

COUSY
6 x Champion
1 x MVP
2 x All-Star MVP
13 x All-Star
10 x All-NBA 1st team
the pioneer of the sport and the first traditional point guard...

thats CLOSE enough

:facepalm

[Heavincent]

How is it flawed? Kobe wasn't that great in the 2010 finals, in fact he was subpar for his standards. 09 he was great, but Wade's 06 finals are among the best finals performances in NBA history.

Kobe was good in the 2010 Finals. Not a legendary performance, but good. You can't deny it. Don't you know that just about everyone shot poorly in game 7? Both teams played very, very good defense so it was tough to have a good shooting%.

We're not just talking about the Finals anyway. Want me to direct you to the thread about Kobe's series against the Suns in 2010?

Game 1: 40/5/5
Game 2: 21/5/13
Game 3: 36/9/11
Game 4: 38/7/10
Game 5: 30/11/9
Game 6: 37/6/2

[christian1923]

Don't start this crap. I said if he does, he has an excellent chance to surpass Kobe. Hypothetical, and I said that when I said "players I believe have a good chance to surpass Kobe". HAVE A GOOD CHANCE, not "are going to without a doubt".

i guess :rolleyes: i can say the same thingg about other players too

[D.J.]

Not sure if serious.


You should take me serious.

[RRR3]

Kobe was good in the 2010 Finals. Not a legendary performance, but good. You can't deny it. Don't you know that just about everyone shot poorly in game 7? Both teams played very, very good defense so it was tough to have a good shooting%.

We're not just talking about the Finals anyway. Want me to direct you to the thread about Kobe's series against the Suns in 2010?

Game 1: 40/5/5
Game 2: 21/5/13
Game 3: 36/9/11
Game 4: 38/7/10
Game 5: 30/11/9
Game 6: 37/6/2

He was good, but not for his standards. Interesting how now, when Kobe's finals play come into question, it's okay to use an earlier round in which he dominated in. I thought the finals were all that matter? And don't act like Wade wasn't great the whole 2006 playoffs.

[RRR3]

You should take me serious.
Afraid I can't when you make hasty statements like that.

[L8kersfan222]

Page five RR3 got absolutely raped how can he still post.
Wade best player in the league right now

[Heavincent]

He was good, but not for his standards. Interesting how now, when Kobe's finals play come into question, it's okay to use an earlier round in which he dominated in. I thought the finals were all that matter? And don't act like Wade wasn't great the whole 2006 playoffs.

Well the Finals do matter the most, and Kobe played well and won, so what the hell is your point?

[Doctor Rivers]

Well the Finals do matter the most, and Kobe played well and won, so what the hell is your point?

Wade played better than Kobe in the Finals

[D.J.]

Afraid I can't when you make hasty statements like that.


There was nothing wrong with what I posted. Kobe is a finess player. He's a jump shooter and relies on fundamentals. That's why he's played at a high level for so long.

LeBron and Wade rely on their athleticism. Neither are terribly fundamental and both are streaky shooters, though Wade has developed a nice mid-range J.

LeBron has played 8 years and has yet to win a title. The only top 10 player not to have a title by season 8 was Olajuwon. Shaq won his first ring in his 8th season. The entire top 10 outside of Dream had at least 1 ring by season 8. LeBron is not a finesse player and relies on athleticism. His legs are going to go eventually and he will come down very fast.

Wade is another one that relies on athleticism. He has a ring and a Finals MVP, but his legs will go too. Neither are on pace to even come close to match Kobe.

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobe and Horry share a common hold here.

I've seen on virtually every site the Horry arguement brought up with Kobe.

Stan somewhere else. Tell me when was Jordan the 2nd option. We would love to hear it.


see this is exactly what i'm talking about!:facepalm ...

Jordan was in the same role as Kobe!..facilitate early...pick your spots for 3 quarters and then be the main weapon in crunchtime and close teams out....

That is what jordan did when he "won championships"..and that is what Kobe did when he "won championships"....

similar players in similar roles with similar results......Jordan did not just come out and demand the ball all 4 quarters and was the first option in the whole game.....he picked his spots and then closed the game in the 4th (I'm talking about championship years)....when MJ had to play the whole game as the first option his teams struggled...as did Kobe's when he was in the "first option all game" mode.....

Jordan closed games on a very good team....and won....alot......just like Kobe.




the whole "first option" is silly ...and really shows your agenda you have been trying cover.....

:roll: @ at a 29PPG 6REB 6AST ....7 points in the 4th quarter average for a Championship run over 15+ games and recognized as the best closer in the game and the First option in crunchtime trying to be slighted??


sad and shows the last grasp for haterz.....

















greatest player of his generation.......and it aint even close.

[Legends66NBA7]

Jordan was in the same role as Kobe!

similar players in similar roles with similar results

Jordan closed games on a very good team....and won....alot......just like Kobe.

the whole "first option" is silly ...and really shows your agenda you have been trying cover.

greatest player of his generation.......and it aint even close.

http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/carl-sagan-smoke-weed-everyday.jpg

[GOBB]

Threads like this I laugh at the whole post count as a diss argument. Why? Further proof you can be a loser without a high post count. How you idiots changed the thread into a Kobe argument once again is sad. Weirdos.

"Thanks for the video Blaze of Chris Webber. Loved watching him throughout the years"

"I liked watching Kobe better. Nanny nanny boo boo!"

":roll: As if watching Kobe trumps Bron. Oh please"

"Kobe has rings, Bron has nothing. I win you lose, get in my back pocket..asap"


:sleeping

[AlphaWolf24]

http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/carl-sagan-smoke-weed-everyday.jpg


more proof you were prolly 5 years old when MJ started winning....

MJ would let others try to get incorportaed into the offense first...then by late 2nd half he would look to close the game...

exactly what Kobe does in the triangle and when the lakers play great.


don't speak of what you not understand......little homey.





next

[AlphaWolf24]

Threads like this I laugh at the whole post count as a diss argument. Why? Further proof you can be a loser without a high post count. How you idiots changed the thread into a Kobe argument once again is sad. Weirdos.

"Thanks for the video Blaze of Chris Webber. Loved watching him throughout the years"

"I liked watching Kobe better. Nanny nanny boo boo!"

":roll: As if watching Kobe trumps Bron. Oh please"

"Kobe has rings, Bron has nothing. I win you lose, get in my back pocket..asap"


:sleeping


:facepalm yes because posts count/green squares = basketball knowledge.....:lol


did you just equate being a knowledgeable basketball fan to post counts on the interwebz??















next

[Doctor Rivers]

:facepalm yes because posts count/green squares = basketball knowledge.....:lol


did you just equate being a knowledgeable basketball fan to post counts on the interwebz??















next

haha

[knightfall88]

a ring is a team accomplishment



thats the other stupid statement that people make.

Well guess what, it is a team game so it makes sense that a team accomplishment is the most prestigious accolade to an individual playing the game.

[GOBB]

:facepalm yes because posts count/green squares = basketball knowledge.....:lol


did you just equate being a knowledgeable basketball fan to post counts on the interwebz??















next


Since you're slow (hope you dont have any kids, feel sorry for them). The point was clowns such as yourself will point to a posters total post count. Like mine for example and because your mind is incapable of having a discussion, debate at length will resort to the predictable "Get a life, you have over 40,000 posts. You're a loser.". Yet here we have in this thread a group of posters with low post counts who turned a thread into another redundant Kobe thread. You do realize the topic has nothing to do with Kobe himself? Yet losers with low post counts continue arguing in a thread about Kobe for what reason? Who knows. Maybe its in your back pocket. Could you pull it out?





next






Did I hold the back of your bike here? You're of age that no one needs to explain this to you as a child. My back pocket is open, hop in it.





who got next?







next

[sodap]

come on, its just another version of this

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg


correlation vs causation

being a better player doesnt necessarily mean you win more rings and vice versa. robert horry or brian scalabrine are prime examples of this.

on a side note, you have to REALLY know what is your job on a team and how to do it, to win 7 rings as a role player. few players have been better at that than horry, ever. the best of his kind, really. something people like kobe will never achieve because MJ = GOAT

[AlphaWolf24]

Since you're slow (hope you dont have any kids, feel sorry for them). The point was clowns such as yourself will point to a posters total post count. Like mine for example and because your mind is incapable of having a discussion, debate at length will resort to the predictable "Get a life, you have over 40,000 posts. You're a loser.". Yet here we have in this thread a group of posters with low post counts who turned a thread into another redundant Kobe thread. You do realize the topic has nothing to do with Kobe himself? Yet losers with low post counts continue arguing in a thread about Kobe for what reason? Who knows. Maybe its in your back pocket. Could you pull it out?





next






Did I hold the back of your bike here? You're of age that no one needs to explain this to you as a child. My back pocket is open, hop in it.





who got next?







next


I have never called someone out for having a large post count on any Sports forum....

I love basketball and could talk about why the ball is orange with someone if they wanted...i understand those that love to talk about whatever sport they choose....

not sure why you think I called anyone out their post count:confusedshrug:

In fact I would be the last one that should call anyone out about talking sports or posting about sports allday ,




Don't be so defensive if someone calls you a loser and tells you to get a life....own that sh!t and recognize who you are....

after all......it can't be that bad:confusedshrug:







(looks at your post count)


:eek:



:facepalm



Cot Damn! young head!......Go Outside....log off and get some sunshine!....


you still got a Desktop?....I know you haven't left your station since the Rockets won a chip...but they make these things called "laptops".....and "I Pads"....you can take them with you outside if you want:lol


get rid of that CRT and upgrade you no life loser!


with your Vitamin D deficient azz...




















2EZ

[EricForman]

Back in the old ISH days it was Kerr as well.

How the ****....does anyone...still feel that makes a legit point?

And even worse....people still have to explain why it doesnt make sense....

Do these people think they just thought it up every time?

If not...do they not see the exact same response that negates it every single time its said?

This is worse than commentators saying "The most dangerous guy is the one inbounding the ball". At least that is often the case...just mentioned too often.

This? I have to know....how is this still among the most common "Rings dont matter' arguments?

How does someone type out "Yea well Horry has ___" and feel they just made a good point?

For the longest time I thought it was a running joke. But it isnt. People honestly keep thinking it makes a point. I think I asked this a few years ago and assumed it would die down with time.

Here I am 10 years in having heard this argument 2-3 times a week(while avoiding most of the kinds of topics they are in as well). And it just doesnt end.

Really...the ****?


I believe it's a "dumbed down troll response" to guys who simplified the whole rings thing and use it out of context.

for example, NOW, in 2011, bashing Lebron for lack of rings vs Kobe's 5 is becoming... okay (and it's only starting to become okay). BUT PEOPLE WERE USING THIS ARGUMENT IN, SAY, 2008, which was absolutely stupid.

I'm not trying to defend Lebron, he absolutely stunked up the finals, looked timid, and cost his team the championship. BUT i still find it ridiculous people say "he couldn't get it done for 8 years" when he's really only had a proper cast to do it for two (2010 and 2011. 2009 team was the weakest #2-12 roster for a 60+ win team ever, by far).

Lebron, realistically, had only two years to go for a title and he's 0 for 2 so far. Not good but hardly any form of epic failure.

But Lebron bashers don't get that logic. Or they refuse to see it. They want to hold Lebron accountable for not winning in 2005, when his peers had far more talent/help. Or in 2007, when his second and third best teammates were Z and Sasha Pavolvic.

I dont think ANYONE really believes horry or Kerr to be better than superstars with less rings. I think it's a dumbed down "oh yeah? welll..." response to the goons who only see things black and white.

Context matters. To say "Kobe already had three rings by 22. Lebron hasn't done squat", BACK IN 2008, was absolutely stupid and made no sense when you looked at the big picture. Even now, it's a bit unfair.

[Jacks3]

lol @ these morons.

That argument is often used in discussions that have nothing to do with Bryant.

Idiots making it about Kobe only. :oldlol:
This.

I've heard this "argument" used in discussions that have nothing to do with Kobe. You hear it with Duncan vs Malone, Duncan vs Barkley, Isiah vs Stockton,Wilt vs Russ, etc etc.

SMH @ these retarded Kobe haters.

[triangleoffense]

I'm well aware of this point, I think many people (hopefully mostly longtime fans) are annoyed at the trivial and arbitrary nature of such a statement and also what the phrase indirectly implies, the downgrading of championship rings to already hall of fame resumes.

This is why I always make the case that rings are only significant when your talking about clear-cut 1st or 2nd options who have one or most importantly several rings. This is the qualifier that separates the duncan, hakeem and kareems from the ewing, barkley and malones.

[magnax1]

It makes the point it's intended to make. Where you are matters more then how good you are. I feel like bringing up that Wilt has 2 championships instead of Russell's 11 as a legitimate point is much more useless, and wish the topic Rings are over rated was made for the 10,000th times instead of someone complaining about people bringing up Horry to make a point for the 10,000th time.

[triangleoffense]

It makes the point it's intended to make. Where you are matters more then how good you are. I feel like bringing up that Wilt has 2 championships instead of Russell's 11 as a legitimate point is much more useless, and wish the topic Rings are over rated was made for the 10,000th times instead of someone complaining about people bringing up Horry to make a point for the 10,000th time.
Wilt and Russell both have rings, they are both champions. It's different when you have 0 rings.

[nayte]

Back in the old ISH days it was Kerr as well.

How the ****....does anyone...still feel that makes a legit point?

And even worse....people still have to explain why it doesnt make sense....

Do these people think they just thought it up every time?

If not...do they not see the exact same response that negates it every single time its said?

This is worse than commentators saying "The most dangerous guy is the one inbounding the ball". At least that is often the case...just mentioned too often.

This? I have to know....how is this still among the most common "Rings dont matter' arguments?

How does someone type out "Yea well Horry has ___" and feel they just made a good point?

For the longest time I thought it was a running joke. But it isnt. People honestly keep thinking it makes a point. I think I asked this a few years ago and assumed it would die down with time.

Here I am 10 years in having heard this argument 2-3 times a week(while avoiding most of the kinds of topics they are in as well). And it just doesnt end.

Really...the ****?

From what I have seen it's usually a defence mechanism.
When two people are debating about the better player someone will say x has y rings and a has b rings(fill in your own numbers..ha)...then the response is usually but but but Horry has seven rings..
And it is a pointless defence cause its most always used in the wrong context..
In saying all that Horry was a great player and I hate seeing him derided in said arguements.

[magnax1]

Wilt and Russell both have rings, they are both champions. It's different when you have 0 rings.
People will tell me Dirk is better then Barkley because of championships, despite it obviously not being true if you take one hour to go back and watch Barkley in 1990, or West was better then Oscar, or the dozen other similar types of comparisons. Whether you're talking about 2, or 0, my point is the same. It matters more where you are then who you are.

[EricForman]

People will tell me Dirk is better then Barkley because of championships, despite it obviously not being true if you take one hour to go back and watch Barkley in 1990, or West was better then Oscar, or the dozen other similar types of comparisons. Whether you're talking about 2, or 0, my point is the same. It matters more where you are then who you are.

I think Dirk has a case for being better than Barkley even if he didn't win a ring this year. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but "Dirk over Barkley" in, say, April 2011 wasn't a ridiculous claim at all.

[D-Wade316]

Neither have a chance. LeBron has played 8 seasons and has no rings. Kobe had 3 after 8 seasons. Wade is at the tail end of his prime right now. He'll be 30 in January.
That's what they said when Wade was injured for 2 seasons. :facepalm Fvcking moron

[D-Wade316]

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

Absolutely not.
U MAD ABOUT THE TRUTH?

[D-Wade316]

Wade's 06 finals is the Greatest Finals Performance in NBA history.
Fixed.

[D-Wade316]

Kobe was good in the 2010 Finals. Not a legendary performance, but good. You can't deny it. Don't you know that just about everyone shot poorly in game 7? Both teams played very, very good defense so it was tough to have a good shooting%.

We're not just talking about the Finals anyway. Want me to direct you to the thread about Kobe's series against the Suns in 2010?

Game 1: 40/5/5
Game 2: 21/5/13
Game 3: 36/9/11
Game 4: 38/7/10
Game 5: 30/11/9
Game 6: 37/6/2
Wade against 06 Pistons >>>> Kobe against 10 Suns.

Deal with it.



















next

[Doctor Rivers]

Fixed.

Wade = highest PER

[Yung D-Will]

Shaq and Duncan?

Kobe helped Shaq win 3 of them, the won another by himself, and shaq was irrelavant since 07
Duncan, just no

Shaq was drafted in 1992 why does it matter if he was irrelevant in 2007?

Lmao from 1994-2003 Shaq has 9 seasons averging 25-10

And from his rookie season to 2005 he has 13 seasons averging 20-10

Not to mention he carried Kobe and had arguably the most dominant peak ever from 99-02

[guy]

A few things:

First of all, tenth is the lowest spot on the top 10 list, so there is probably going to be a decent argument about whether there are players who could be ranked over the player in said (tenth) spot more than any other spot on the list. Tenth is followed by eleven (which is not top ten, duh, sorry to be obvious lol), and is the only spot on a top ten list that "borders", if you will, a not top 10 spot.

Secondly, putting him below tenth is not stupid at all, because it's legitimately debatable where he ranks depending on your criteria.

As to where I put him...I don't have an exact place for him but this may help...

Players without a doubt better than Kobe on the all-time list:
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Shaquille O'Neal
Bill Russell

That's 7 for sure.

Players Probably better than Kobe on the all-time list:
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon

Players I believe are better than Kobe on the all-time list:
Oscar Robertson

Players some could/might argue are better than Kobe on the all-time list (I would NOT argue these, most likely FYI):
Jerry West
Charles Barkley
Moses Malone
Julius Erving

In conclusion, I believe Kobe is at best 10th all-time, and I personally have him 11th, although I am fine with him being a bit lower as long as he's not too low (i.e. out of top 15).

Provide us an actual argument on why you think Oscar is better then Kobe.

[guy]

People will tell me Dirk is better then Barkley because of championships, despite it obviously not being true if you take one hour to go back and watch Barkley in 1990, or West was better then Oscar, or the dozen other similar types of comparisons. Whether you're talking about 2, or 0, my point is the same. It matters more where you are then who you are.

Better players are usually easier to build around, which is why they win titles IMO. So I absolutely think rings matter. Most people that watched Russell and Wilt will tell you that the main reason Russell won was cause he was more unselfish, didn't care about anything else but winning, and had the killer instinct at the end of games that Wilt didn't have. People point to Russell having HOF teammates, even though just about everyone from back then points out that many of them wouldn't have been HOFers if it weren't for Russell. And we've heard numerous times people say that Wilt wouldn't have been able to lead those same casts to anywhere near 11 rings. I believe Wilt has said this himself.

As far as Barkley and Dirk go, I definitely wouldn't say Dirk in his prime was as good as Barkley in his prime. Not a debate there. But career? Possibly. You can argue that Dirk was easier to build a champion around cause of his longevity cause he was more durable as a result of a greater work ethic. You can also argue that he was an easier player to deal with from a teammate/coach/management standpoint, giving his team more time and patience to make the correct moves and adjustments and build better chemistry, instead of him getting traded multiple times in his career looking for the right place.

Like I said, certain players are easier to build around whether its due to ability, impact, longevity, durability, work ethic, attitude, leadership, etc. I personally think its completely ridiculous when people say the only reason Duncan has way more rings then Barkley, Malone, KG, and Dirk is because of his teammates.

[Jacks3]

carried[/I] Kobe and had arguably the most dominant peak ever from 99-02
You're a fukking moron. :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

It's not just having rings. It's about winning. The object of the game is to win. You think Wade would rather shoot 53% in the finals and lose or shoot 42% and win? If rings didn't matter why the hell did LeBron leave the team that drafted him and the city that worshiped him and become the most hated man in the NBA? He wants to win. That's what's important. Are there other factors that contribute to a player's greatness? of course. But those things mean nothing if they don't translate into obtaining the ultimate prize: and NBA championship.
Great post. But unfortunately, this isn't the norm from a fan standpoint. Especially on ISH. Far to often, I see players roles on championship teams get diminished to silly stuff like "batman" "1st/2nd option", "the man", "robin", "sidekick", the list goes on and on.

Then it seems as if people want to rate how big of a role a player has on a championship team. To the point that if your not the best player, somehow your contributions don't mean much.

I'm all but positive that if you were to ask some of the people that frequent this forum, whould they rather their favorite player put up gaudy stats and lose, or put up very good stats and win, they'd choose option 1. And that's sad.

[DJ Leon Smith]

You're a fukking moron. :oldlol:

Excellent work calling someone a moron when you can't even paste a quote.

[Jacks3]

:oldlol: @ this fukking phagett.

The Greatness of Kobe Bean Bryant!!!
9X All-NBA 1st Team
2X All-NBA 2nd Team
2X All-NBA 3rd Team
9X All-NBA 1st Team Defense
2X All-NBA 2nd Team Defense
5X Top 5 DPOY/9X Top 10 DPOY
13X Time All-Star
4X Time All-Star MVP
2X NBA Finals MVP
1X NBA MVP
10th All-Time in MVP Shares
2X Scoring Champion
5 Time NBA Champion
7 Time NBA Finalist
10 55+ Win Seasons
15X Player of the Month Winner
Slam Dunk Champion (1997)
#1 Offensive APM (10 Year Study)
#10 All-Time in WAR
24 Career Average PER (15 Seasons)
2X Gold Medalist
Sporting News Player of the Decade
TNT Player of the Decade
ESPN Player of the Decade
Sports Illustrated Top 20 Male Athlete of the Decade (2000s) #7 (the only NBA player in the top 10)


Has more 50+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt or Jordan (25)
Has more 40+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt or Jordan (110)
Has more 60+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt (5)
Record Holder: Highest percentage of team points (2005-2006)
Record Holder: Most threes in one game (12)
Only player in history to score at least 600 points in three consecutive post-seasons
2001-2010 RS: 28.6 PPG/5.7 RPG/5.4 APG/1.7 SPG/0.6 BPG/56% TS
2001-2010 PS: 28.8 PPG/5.8 RPG/5.2 APG/1.8 SPG/0.6 BPG/56% TS
Some of his best seasons:
35 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
32 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS
30 PPG/7 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/1 BPG/55% TS
29 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.6 BPG/55% TS
28 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS
27 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
27 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.4 BPG/55% TS
28 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
26 PPG/6 APG/6 RPG/2 SPG/0.6 BPG/55% TS
Some of his best post-seasons:
29 PPG/7 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/1 BPG/56% TS (16 games)
27 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/52% TS (22 games)
30 PPG/6 APG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS (22 games)
30 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.4 BPG/57% TS (23 games)
29 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.4 BPG/57% TS (23 games)
29 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.3 SPG/0.3 BPG/58% TS (7 games)
33 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.4 SPG/0.4 BPG/56% TS (5 games)
4 straight 45+ point games (2006)
4 straight 50+ point games (2007)
9 straight 40+ point games (2003)
13 straight 35+ point games (2003)
81 pts
62 points in three quarters. Outscored opposing team by himself.
27 40+ point games in one season (Only Wilt/Jordan have done that)
10 50+ point games in one season (Only player beside Wilt to do so)
Has three different games where he scored 30+ in one quarter.
Has six different games where he scored 50+ pts though three quarters.
Has five different months where he averaged 40+ PPG.
One of seven players ever with 25,000 pts/5,000 rbs/5,000 asts
6th on All-Time Scoring List
4th on All-Time Playoff Scoring List

get mad *******!

[RRR3]

LOL @ Jacks. Kobe is TIED for the most threes in a game, and he's a career .339 3pt shooter. :bowdown: :bowdown: :rolleyes: IIRC Jordan also had 5 games over 60 points and 1 was in the playoffs.

[BallsOut]

Back in the old ISH days it was Kerr as well.

How the ****....does anyone...still feel that makes a legit point?

And even worse....people still have to explain why it doesnt make sense....

Do these people think they just thought it up every time?

If not...do they not see the exact same response that negates it every single time its said?

This is worse than commentators saying "The most dangerous guy is the one inbounding the ball". At least that is often the case...just mentioned too often.

This? I have to know....how is this still among the most common "Rings dont matter' arguments?

How does someone type out "Yea well Horry has ___" and feel they just made a good point?

For the longest time I thought it was a running joke. But it isnt. People honestly keep thinking it makes a point. I think I asked this a few years ago and assumed it would die down with time.

Here I am 10 years in having heard this argument 2-3 times a week(while avoiding most of the kinds of topics they are in as well). And it just doesnt end.

Really...the ****?

Vintage kblaze ethering RRR3 :bowdown:

[Lucifer]

:oldlol: @ this fukking phagett.

The Greatness of Kobe Bean Bryant!!!
9X All-NBA 1st Team
2X All-NBA 2nd Team
2X All-NBA 3rd Team
9X All-NBA 1st Team Defense
2X All-NBA 2nd Team Defense
5X Top 5 DPOY/9X Top 10 DPOY
13X Time All-Star
4X Time All-Star MVP
2X NBA Finals MVP
1X NBA MVP
10th All-Time in MVP Shares
2X Scoring Champion
5 Time NBA Champion
7 Time NBA Finalist
10 55+ Win Seasons
15X Player of the Month Winner
Slam Dunk Champion (1997)
#1 Offensive APM (10 Year Study)
#10 All-Time in WAR
24 Career Average PER (15 Seasons)
2X Gold Medalist
Sporting News Player of the Decade
TNT Player of the Decade
ESPN Player of the Decade
Sports Illustrated Top 20 Male Athlete of the Decade (2000s) #7 (the only NBA player in the top 10)


Has more 50+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt or Jordan (25)
Has more 40+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt or Jordan (110)
Has more 60+ point games than any player in history not named Wilt (5)
Record Holder: Highest percentage of team points (2005-2006)
Record Holder: Most threes in one game (12)
Only player in history to score at least 600 points in three consecutive post-seasons
2001-2010 RS: 28.6 PPG/5.7 RPG/5.4 APG/1.7 SPG/0.6 BPG/56% TS
2001-2010 PS: 28.8 PPG/5.8 RPG/5.2 APG/1.8 SPG/0.6 BPG/56% TS
Some of his best seasons:
35 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
32 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS
30 PPG/7 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/1 BPG/55% TS
29 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.6 BPG/55% TS
28 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS
27 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
27 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.4 BPG/55% TS
28 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.5 BPG/56% TS
26 PPG/6 APG/6 RPG/2 SPG/0.6 BPG/55% TS
Some of his best post-seasons:
29 PPG/7 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/1 BPG/56% TS (16 games)
27 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/2 SPG/0.5 BPG/52% TS (22 games)
30 PPG/6 APG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.5 BPG/58% TS (22 games)
30 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.5 SPG/0.4 BPG/57% TS (23 games)
29 PPG/6 RPG/6 APG/1.4 SPG/0.4 BPG/57% TS (23 games)
29 PPG/6 RPG/5 APG/1.3 SPG/0.3 BPG/58% TS (7 games)
33 PPG/5 RPG/5 APG/1.4 SPG/0.4 BPG/56% TS (5 games)
4 straight 45+ point games (2006)
4 straight 50+ point games (2007)
9 straight 40+ point games (2003)
13 straight 35+ point games (2003)
81 pts
62 points in three quarters. Outscored opposing team by himself.
27 40+ point games in one season (Only Wilt/Jordan have done that)
10 50+ point games in one season (Only player beside Wilt to do so)
Has three different games where he scored 30+ in one quarter.
Has six different games where he scored 50+ pts though three quarters.
Has five different months where he averaged 40+ PPG.
One of seven players ever with 25,000 pts/5,000 rbs/5,000 asts
6th on All-Time Scoring List
4th on All-Time Playoff Scoring List

get mad *******!


@ 33 years old. there used to be a time where i had to argue FOR kobe against haters, but i just have to point to the resume now and they shut up :roll:

[RRR3]

@ 33 years old. there used to be a time where i had to argue FOR kobe against haters, but i just have to point to the resume now and they shut up :roll:
How's Hell these days, Lucifer? Hot enough for ya? :lol

[32Dayz]

Because people who judge players by Rings are complete and utter morons.

Winning Rings is mostly due to things like Era/Supporting Casts and Luck.

One bad bounce, one lucky bounce can easily make the difference between winning 0 rings or winning 5.

One career on stacked teams vs One career on shitty teams can easily make the difference between winning 0 rings or winning 5.

One bad trade, one bad draft one bad decision by the gm can easily make the same difference.

Individual players should be judged on how they perform in the playoffs.

If they perform well but lose because their supporting casts played poorly they should not be held accountable for that loss and their excellent personal performance's should go towards their career resume as a positive thing not a negative thing.

If an individual performs poorly and their team loses then yes of course they should be held accountable and have that on their resume as a negative thing.

This whole idea that a player can be judged by the number of Rings he has gotten is the dumbest thing ever and the only people who truly want players judged that way are Kobe and Bill Russell Fans because even though both players were amazing individual players they were far from the players their fans think they were.

Kobe was not "significantly better" then TMac in the early 00's and he isn't better then DWade or Lebron the only difference is he has played with the Jordan of his Era (Prime Shaq) for 8+ Years and had the best front court and another stacked cast from 08-11 (4 years).

Honestly I can only say he underachieved.

The Robert Horry example is a good one because it shows no matter how many Rings you have it doesnt make you better then another player.

Robert Horry has 7 Rings so he is better then Jordan right?

See how stupid it is to judge players based on a team accomplishment?

[Yung D-Will]

Because people who judge players by Rings are complete and utter morons.

Winning Rings is mostly due to things like Era/Supporting Casts and Luck.


And people who completely ignore rings when they're evaluating where to rank a player are on a level passed that of a moron.

I don't rank players just based on rings but I've never once thought of leaving them out of the equation. It's foolish just to say Kobe has 5 rings so he > Shaq or statements such as thoughs you have to take each ring into context. Clearly Hakeem's 94 ring has more value than the ring Kg won in 08 if I'm comparing them ( Though rings would have probally not come into the equation because Hakeem's peak was significantly better than KG's). Yes I'm talking about peak, people like me who use rings don't use them as the only criteria I value Peak,Prime,Rings,Longevity,Individual Awards ext if there's a large gap between any of these factors when I'm comparing players it's not something I ignore but it's not something that automaticlly means player A>Player B.

[32Dayz]

Too many factors go into winning rings for me to use them as a criteria even in the smallest sense.

I mean how can we decide how valuable that player was to his team, how we can determine how much of that Ring was won due to role players stepping up or pure luck.

It just isnt logical.

A GOAT player can play on bad teams his whole career and never win anything but still be one of the greatest players to ever play.


A GOAT player can also play on stacked teams his whole Career and thusly be overrated by his Fans (ie : Kobe).

Just judge players based on how they perform as individuals not on how their teams perform.

[Doctor Rivers]

Is Wade's one ring > Kobe's threepeat rings?

[Yung D-Will]

Too many factors go into winning rings for me to use them as a criteria even in the smallest sense.

I mean how can we decide how valuable that player was to his team, how we can determine how much of that Ring was won due to role players stepping up or pure luck.

It just isnt logical.

A GOAT player can play on bad teams his whole career and never win anything but still be one of the greatest players to ever play.



A GOAT player can also play on stacked teams his whole Career and thusly be overrated by his Fans (ie : Kobe).

Just judge players based on how they perform as individuals not on how their teams perform.
I have no affiliation to Kobe therefore I could care less if you feel he's overrated. But Personally his rings aren't the main reason I rank him top 10 [I give him credit for his rings but when I put them into context his 02(Even though he wasn't the best player on the team),09,10 ring only seem to hold weight to me]his high scoring playoff games, Consistency, Longevity , Defense, His number of 30,40 and 50 point games, his abilty to adjust to his changing body and his changing teamates so he could find a way to be dominant in 08( Imo his peak season) whiles being a completely different player than when he dominated in 06( Let me make this clear that I don't even consider him the best player of the decade) But from witnessing some of his younger games against the Spurs in the playoffs to some of his older games against a team like the Suns I've seen a player who's changed so much but manage to maintain his effectiveness. And I felt like I was witnessing one of the greatest to play the games

And No. I will not judge players solely on that, I've never judged any players in sports solely on that.

And what do you mean how can we determine how valuable a player was to his team? I mean it's not really that difficult if you want to figure it out research it or better yet just watch the finals games, there's a quite significant archive of all the finals games online. I don't get the last part? How can you not determine that someone like Kobe in 2010 had a better supporting cast than someone like Duncan in 03? These things aren't complicated to me... They're basic.

[TheCorporation]

a ring is a team accomplishment

that being said, none of the teams he won a ring with would have had a chance without him

one of the best role players in history

:lol :lol

[D-Wade316]

Is Wade's one ring > Kobe's threepeat rings?
Absolutely yes.

[D-Wade316]

People, like Kobe stans, fail to put the # of rings a player has. That's it.

[Duncan21formvp]

Why do people use the Robert Horry when they should just use the John Havlicek who has 8 rings and a finals mvp and was a multiple time allstar and on all defensive teams as well.