Best players each season since 2000 [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

View Full Version : Best players each season since 2000

StateOfMind12

01-17-2013, 01:01 PM

kennethgriffin

01-17-2013, 01:07 PM

2000 - Diesel
2001 - Diesel
2002 - Diesel
2003 - Duncan
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Nash
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Duncan
2008 - Kobe
2009 - Lebron
2010 - Lebron
2011 - Lebron
2012 - Lebron
2013 (this season) - Lebron

parker won mvp in 2007

and this double standard needs to stop. people throw a nonfinals mvp duncan as best player in 07 just cause he got a ring

but you don't give the same credit to kobe in 09

whats it about? a guy you like with an agenda... or a factual criteria

gtfo bum

SilkkTheShocker

01-17-2013, 01:07 PM

Agreed with everyone of them aside from 2005. I would put TD in that spot.

TheMarkMadsen

01-17-2013, 01:08 PM

Kobe in 09-10 is severely underrated.

I give him the nod in 09 possibly 10 as well over Lebron.

Great regular seasons + amazing playoff performances & 2 FMVP in that stretch?

Give me Kobe 09 and 10

StateOfMind12

01-17-2013, 01:10 PM

parker won mvp in 2007

and this double standard needs to stop. people throw a nonfinals mvp duncan as best player in 07 just cause he got a ring

but you don't give the same credit to kobe in 09

whats it about? a guy you like with an agenda... or a factual criteria

gtfo bum
Parker won Finals MVP and he shouldn't have won it. Duncan was the best overall player that season, ring or no ring. He performed tremendously in the playoffs and he impacted the game on both sides which no other player that season did.

SilkkTheShocker

01-17-2013, 01:13 PM

parker won mvp in 2007

and this double standard needs to stop. people throw a nonfinals mvp duncan as best player in 07 just cause he got a ring

but you don't give the same credit to kobe in 09

whats it about? a guy you like with an agenda... or a factual criteria

gtfo bum

Duncan was their best player in the playoffs. Parker beat up on a rookie 2nd round PG. Im not discrediting Parker. But Duncan was a lot more important for that team. He shut the paint down every game.

rmt

01-17-2013, 01:20 PM

parker won mvp in 2007

and this double standard needs to stop. people throw a nonfinals mvp duncan as best player in 07 just cause he got a ring

but you don't give the same credit to kobe in 09

whats it about? a guy you like with an agenda... or a factual criteria

gtfo bum

So just because Spurs went with the mis-match (hobbled Eric Snow and rookie Daniel Gibson) and Parker had the better OFFENSIVE numbers in the Finals, he's the best player for the SEASON? That finals was won on controlling Lebron - Bowen on the perimeter and Duncan in the paint.

Duncan was All-NBA 1st team, All-Defensive 1st team and 4th in MVP voting in 07. Parker was nowhere near any of those honors.

midatlantic09

01-17-2013, 01:47 PM

Jolokia

01-17-2013, 01:49 PM

Kobe, Lebron, and Wade are all debatable for the 2008-2009 season.

ShaqAttack3234

01-17-2013, 01:51 PM

tpols

01-17-2013, 01:51 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Wade
2010- Lebron
2011- Howard
2012- Lebron
2013- Durant

Mr. I'm So Rad

01-17-2013, 01:57 PM

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan/Shaq
2003 - Duncan/TMac/Kobe
2004 - KG
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Kobe
2008 - Kobe
2009 - LeBron/Wade/Kobe
2010 - LeBron/Kobe
2011 - LeBron/Wade/Dwight/Dirk
2012 - LeBron
2013 - Durant/LeBron

Shade8780

01-17-2013, 02:01 PM

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan
2004 - KG
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Kobe
2008 - Kobe
2009 - LeBron
2010 - LeBron
2011 - LeBron
2012 - LeBron
2013 - LeBron

chazzy

01-17-2013, 02:02 PM

Yeah 2011 is tough. I had Dwight as my MVP and Dirk was clearly the playoff MVP. Lebron was great most of the year but the huge Finals drop off leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

brownmamba00

01-17-2013, 02:16 PM

2011: Dirk

he was on a mission that year

Odinn

01-17-2013, 02:30 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7583764

In my opinion,

1999 - Tim Duncan
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Tim Duncan
2006 - Kobe Bryant
2007 - Kobe Bryant
2008 - Kobe Bryant
2009 - Lebron James
2010 - Lebron James
2011 - Lebron James
2012 - Lebron James

Note - 2011 Dirk had a better season than LeBron did but LeBron was the better overall player. You could say the same for 2009 and 2010 with Kobe as well and that he had a better season but was just a worse overall player.

Burgz V2

01-17-2013, 02:49 PM

Burgz V2

01-17-2013, 02:50 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7583764
:roll: :roll: :roll:
EXPOSED!

Rysio

01-17-2013, 02:55 PM

2000 - shaq
2001 - kobe
2002 - shaq
2003 - kobe
2004 - kobe
2005 - kobe(injured but still the best)
2006 - kobe
2007 - kobe
2008 - kobe
2009 - kobe
2010 - kobe
2011 - dirk
2012 - Lebrick
2013 - durant/kobe

brownmamba00

01-17-2013, 03:00 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7583764
:lol

creepingdeath

01-17-2013, 03:07 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Lebron
2010- Lebron
2011- Lebron
2012- Lebron
2013- Lebron

I'm a bit unsure about 2011 between Dwight and Lebron, but I'll just give it to Lebron.
I tend to agree with this (although 2006-2007 is very very close between the elite players), except for 2011. If Dirk doesn't get injured, the Mavs win 60+ games and Dirk hoists three trophies at the end of the season.

LakersFan626

01-17-2013, 03:07 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Kobe
2010- Kobe
2011- Dirk
2012- Lebron
2013- Durant (so far)

This list is pretty accurate.

HurricaneKid

01-17-2013, 03:36 PM

It really depends on how much weight you give the postseason.

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan/Shaq
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Wade/Dirk
2007 - Duncan
2008 - CP3
2009 - Lebron
2010 - Lebron
2011 - Lebron
2012 - Lebron
2013 (this season) - Durant

I feel weird about not having Kobe anywhere but I don't know where I could get him in. I think his best years coincided with better runs. Conversely, Duncan seemed to win a few years (05/07) that no one had historic seasons or playoff runs.

TylerOO

01-17-2013, 03:47 PM

Hate to break it to you, but Nash has never been the best player in the league.

This. Cant believe someone would actually think that

chuckbuck

01-17-2013, 04:24 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Duncan
2005- present
LEBRON

Money 23

01-17-2013, 04:27 PM

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq/Iverson
2002 - Duncan/Shaq
2003 - Duncan/TMac/Kobe
2004 - KG
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Kobe/LeBron
2007 - Kobe
2008 - Kobe/Paul
2009 - LeBron/Wade/Kobe
2010 - LeBron/Kobe
2011 - LeBron/Wade/Dwight/Dirk/Rose
2012 - LeBron
2013 - Durant/LeBron

Deuce Bigalow

01-17-2013, 04:41 PM

2000: Shaq
2001: Shaq
2002: Shaq
2003: Duncan
2004: KG
2005: Duncan
2006: Kobe
2007: Kobe
2008: Kobe
2009: Lebron/Wade/Kobe
2010: Kobe/Lebron
2011: Dirk
2012: Lebron
2013: Durant (so far)

Orlando Magic

01-17-2013, 04:55 PM

2000: Shaquille O'Neal
2001: Shaquille O'Neal
2002: Shaquille O'Neal
2003: Shaquille O'Neal
2004: Shaquille O'Neal
2005: Shaquille O'Neal
2006: LeBron James
2007: LeBron James
2008: LeBron James
2009: LeBron James
2010: LeBron James
2011: LeBron James
2012: LeBron James
2013: LeBron James

Kurosawa0

01-17-2013, 07:19 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Lebron
2010- Lebron
2011- Lebron
2012- Lebron
2013- Lebron

Yeah, this looks about right. I might put LeBron ahead of Kobe in 2008, but otherwise pretty spot on.

arifgokcen

01-17-2013, 07:20 PM

Heavincent

01-17-2013, 07:20 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Kobe
2010- Kobe
2011- Dirk (his playoff run alone puts him at #1)
2012- Lebron
2013- Lebron

Young X

01-17-2013, 07:22 PM

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan/Shaq/Garnett
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Garnett
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Kobe
2008 - Kobe/Paul
2009 - Wade/Lebron/Paul
2010 - Lebron
2011 - Wade
2012 - Lebron
2013 - Lebron

BuffaloBill

01-17-2013, 07:22 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7583764

:facepalm :facepalm :roll: OP exposed

BuffaloBill

01-17-2013, 07:27 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Wade
2010- Lebron
2011- Dwight
2012- Lebron
2013- Durant/Lebron (season not over yet)

Mirko Cro Cop

01-17-2013, 07:31 PM

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Kobe
2007 - LeBron
2008 - LeBron
2009 - LeBron
2010 - LeBron
2011 - Dirk
2012 - LeBron
2013 to present - LeBron

red1

01-17-2013, 07:34 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe
2007- Kobe
2008- Kobe
2009- Lebron
2010- Lebron
2011- Lebron
2012- Lebron
2013- Lebron

I'm a bit unsure about 2011 between Dwight and Lebron, but I'll just give it to Lebron.
+1. 1999 goes to timmy, shaq gets 2000, 05 goes to duncan, 11 can also go to dirk or dwight but if you ask me lbj was clearly the best player that year even including the finals

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 08:19 PM

2000: Shaq
2001: Shaq
2002: Kidd
2003: Duncan
2004: Garnett
2005: Nash
2006: Wade
2007: Nash
2008: Kobe
2009: Kobe
2010: Kobe
2011: Dirk
2012: Lebron

MMM

01-17-2013, 08:30 PM

2000- Shaq
2001- Shaq
2002- Shaq/Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004- Garnett
2005- Duncan
2006- Kobe/Wade
2007- Kobe
2008- Garnett/Kobe
2009- LeBron
2010- LeBron
2011- Dirk/LeBron
2012- Lebron
2013- LeBron/Durant

tazb

01-17-2013, 08:34 PM

Magic bird

01-17-2013, 08:37 PM

2011: Dirk

he was on a mission that year
This.

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 08:44 PM

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 08:45 PM

red1

01-17-2013, 08:47 PM

It's interesting to see Lebron picked prior to this past season. It's actually hilarious. He must have been planets ahead of Bryant and Nowitzki in the regular season. So much so that the postseason, where the stakes are raised, don't measure up.

If he was as good in that Orlando series as his stats would suggest, his team would have won in 4 or 5. If he was as good as the best player on the other team, then it should have come down to one close-ass Game 7. His team was outplayed in all but one game and they hit a buzzer-beater in Game 2, to avoid going down 2-0 at home. Whereas Bryant, after sleeping thru the first round, was the best player in the playoffs, round after round after round. Kobe was better than Lebron in 2009 and there's really little rational argument against it.

In 2010, Lebron played just as well in the regular season. Kobe was again great but not as good as the year before. He also beasted throughout the playoffs (and was great in the finals, despite the shooting %). There's no legitimate argument in 2010. This is not football, where they play one game and there are 25 starters for each team and where situations dictate a lot. Even there, the playoffs are even more relevant. Peyton is losing his shine, even tho he's carried teams that were never as good as Brady's teams. But Lebron is the player of the year, all those years, despite being only so far ahead in the regular season and clearly not being the best in the playoffs? Why? Because you read his shirt and checked his stats?

2011 is even more hilarious. Dirk's playoff run was insane. And Lebron's season wasn't nearly as great as either of the previous two seasons, and he and Wade were hardly separable.
:facepalm Do you know what best player even means? Everytime I see ewings goofy face in your avatar I know I am about to read some retarded shit. Why do people who don't know what they are talking about always feel so strongly inclined to share their opinion?

StateOfMind12

01-17-2013, 09:01 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7583764
Yea, I changed my mind

Budadiiii

01-17-2013, 09:01 PM

+1. 1999 goes to timmy, shaq gets 2000, 05 goes to duncan, 11 can also go to dirk or dwight but if you ask me lbj was clearly the best player that year even including the finals
:biggums:

DirkNowitzki41

01-17-2013, 09:04 PM

red1

01-17-2013, 09:09 PM

It's interesting to see Lebron picked prior to this past season. It's actually hilarious. He must have been planets ahead of Bryant and Nowitzki in the regular season. So much so that the postseason, where the stakes are raised, don't measure up.

If he was as good in that Orlando series as his stats would suggest, his team would have won in 4 or 5. If he was as good as the best player on the other team, then it should have come down to one close-ass Game 7. His team was outplayed in all but one game and they hit a buzzer-beater in Game 2, to avoid going down 2-0 at home. Whereas Bryant, after sleeping thru the first round, was the best player in the playoffs, round after round after round. Kobe was better than Lebron in 2009 and there's really little rational argument against it.

In 2010, Lebron played just as well in the regular season. Kobe was again great but not as good as the year before. He also beasted throughout the playoffs (and was great in the finals, despite the shooting %). There's no legitimate argument in 2010. This is not football, where they play one game and there are 25 starters for each team and where situations dictate a lot. Even there, the playoffs are even more relevant. Peyton is losing his shine, even tho he's carried teams that were never as good as Brady's teams. But Lebron is the player of the year, all those years, despite being only so far ahead in the regular season and clearly not being the best in the playoffs? Why? Because you read his shirt and checked his stats?

2011 is even more hilarious. Dirk's playoff run was insane. And Lebron's season wasn't nearly as great as either of the previous two seasons, and he and Wade were hardly separable.
Whoah you are one of the most annoying posters on this website because you constantly try to act clever and come with strong opinions when it is obvious that you dont even know what you are talking about. It is like you are looking for an excuse to type up an essay where you just regurgitate some bullshit while adding your own twist and narrative while providing zero basketball insight. At least the trolls are blatant and are occasionally funny.

Do you know how stupid the bolded shit makes you look? 2009 and 2010 were not kobe's best seasons, kobe was CLEARLY a superior player during the 07-08 season where he played some of his basketball in his career. Yet according to your logic kobe was clearly better in 2010 because he won that year and lost in 2008. Your simplistic and childish way of looking at things does not take into account the fact that he had artest in place of radmanovic to guard pierce and had an experienced and focused version of pau.

red1

01-17-2013, 09:14 PM

:biggums:
that was meant to read as: even if you include the finals

ShaqAttack3234

01-17-2013, 09:23 PM

I tend to agree with this (although 2006-2007 is very very close between the elite players), except for 2011. If Dirk doesn't get injured, the Mavs win 60+ games and Dirk hoists three trophies at the end of the season.

Yeah, a case can definitely be made for Dirk, and I've had him 1st at times as well for the unbelievable playoff run, but when I honestly think about it, I can't say I feel comfortable saying he was a better player than Lebron or Dwight.

Yeah, this looks about right. I might put LeBron ahead of Kobe in 2008, but otherwise pretty spot on.

Kobe vs Lebron wasn't a particularly though choice for me. This was the best all around season I've seen from Kobe. Usually, I give Lebron a clear advantage in playmaking, but I think Kobe was phenomenal in this regard. Defensively, this is the last year I think Kobe was the better defender, but it's the best defense I've seen Kobe play since the 3peat. Scoring is the clear edge for Kobe since he hadn't lost much athleticism and his skills were off the charts. Lebron was still the superior athlete, but his shooting really holds him back for me. This is definitely the best approach I've seen from Kobe. Both leadership, and game management. He really played well within the flow of the offense while still carrying the team, and he was unstoppable through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs.

2000: Shaq
2001: Shaq
2002: Kidd
2003: Duncan
2004: Garnett
2005: Nash
2006: Wade
2007: Nash
2008: Kobe
2009: Kobe
2010: Kobe
2011: Dirk
2012: Lebron

Kidd in front of Shaq in '02 really stands out. I can't see a single argument for that. Nash over Duncan in '05 is also puzzling, but Nash over both Kobe and Duncan in '07 is even more puzzling.

It's interesting to see Lebron picked prior to this past season. It's actually hilarious. He must have been planets ahead of Bryant and Nowitzki in the regular season. So much so that the postseason, where the stakes are raised, don't measure up.

If he was as good in that Orlando series as his stats would suggest, his team would have won in 4 or 5. If he was as good as the best player on the other team, then it should have come down to one close-ass Game 7. His team was outplayed in all but one game and they hit a buzzer-beater in Game 2, to avoid going down 2-0 at home. Whereas Bryant, after sleeping thru the first round, was the best player in the playoffs, round after round after round. Kobe was better than Lebron in 2009 and there's really little rational argument against it.

Kobe didn't have a better series vs Orlando than Lebron did. If you watched the Orlando series, the problems were that Cleveland had absolutely no one to guard Dwight, and Rashard Lewis was a huge mismatch vs Cleveland's bigger 4s. You talk about Cleveland being a buzzer beater from going down 2-0, but Cleveland goes up 1-0 if not for Rashard's game-winner, and they tie the series 2-2 if Rashard doesn't send game 4 to OT with a 3. And that's with the 2 mismatches I mentioned, and Lebron's second option shooting 37%. Plus, Mike Brown was badly outcoached by Van Gundy and failed to make any adjustments when it was clear things weren't working.

Lebron really did almost all he could in that series. If I want to nitpick, I'd say a poor game 6 when very few thought Cleveland was even going to win the series(with Lebron also having averaged 41/9/8 through the first 5 games) and the turnovers late in game 4. But considering Lebron pretty much kept Cleveland competitive by himself, I can't hold those things against him much.

Money 23

01-17-2013, 09:34 PM

Including playoffs the list changes, and probably a much more accurate gauge of who the actual best player and MVP was in their respective season.

1989 - MJ
1990 - MJ
1991 - MJ
1992 - MJ
1993 - MJ
1994 - Hakeem
1995 - Hakeem
1996 - MJ
1997 - MJ
1998 - MJ
1999 - Duncan

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan
2004 - KG
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Wade
2007 - Duncan
2008 - Kobe
2009 - LeBron

2010 - Kobe
2011 - Dirk
2012 - LeBron
2013 -

MJ - 8x MVPs
Shaq - 3x MVPs
Duncan - 3x MVPs
Hakeem - 2x MVPs
Kobe - 2x MVPs
LeBron - 2x MVPs
Wade - MVP
KG - MVP
Dirk - MVP

TheNaturalWR

01-17-2013, 09:36 PM

The lack of Wade for 09 is alarming.

Money 23

01-17-2013, 09:40 PM

Yet if we're talking about if a gun was put to my head and I flat out said who I thought was the best player based on ability, longevity, expectations, etc and not necessarily that particular season's performance from a player? Meaning no context driven narratives or voter fatigue such as: Iverson, Nash, Dirk, Rose, Durant, etc.

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Shaq
2004 - Shaq
2005 - Duncan
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Kobe
2008 - Kobe
2009 - LeBron
2010 - LeBron
2011 - LeBron
2012 - LeBron
2013 - LeBron

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 09:55 PM

Kidd in front of Shaq in '02 really stands out. I can't see a single argument for that. Nash over Duncan in '05 is also puzzling, but Nash over both Kobe and Duncan in '07 is even more puzzling.

Shaq bothers me. He's a guy who gets away with so much it's honestly astonishing. Jason Kidd was certainly better in the regular season. Duncan as the MVP was actually fine with me, but no one else should have been in the discussion. The Lakers should have been eliminated by the Kings and Shaq lived off horrific officiating in that series. That Nets team is the worst team I've seen in the Finals.

It's a shame because officiating like that makes it difficult for me to appreciate Shaq, even when I know he's one of the best I've seen. But also, that lack of a team that was the Nets...throughout that entire Finals I saw Kidd literally have to do everything and there's only so much one guy can do. I was more impressed with him.

Nash over Duncan isn't that puzzling. We both agree he was better than Duncan was that regular season. In the playoffs, Nash was better than he was. What Duncan has over him is the Finals. Duncan didn't play better than Nash did in the WCF's. His team was better. Duncan then went on to have a terrific Finals against Detroit, but I think Ginobili was the FMVP and I think that that full picture is in Nash's favor. With that said, I have no problem with Duncan over him and I thought about it. The Finals is the most important and Duncan was there, playing great. But that's the only advantage for him throughout the season.

Nash over Kobe in 07 is not a discussion with which you could possibly disagree. The reason is simple: I believe you agreed that Nash was better than Kobe that season. Nash's team took out Kobe's team in the first round. Was Kobe that epic in the loss? How could Kobe have played better than Nash? Unless you change your mind that Kobe was better in the regular season, which I think is fine. But I've never seen you say that so I can't understand what your argument would be.

And as far as Duncan. Duncan was nowhere near the same guy then. Nash was levels above him in the regular season. Ginobili and Parker was beastly through the playoffs and, thankfully, they didn't give Duncan the FMVP. One of the craziest things I've seen is people arguing for Duncan as the 2007 FMVP. The argument for him was that he was their best player. He didn't play as well as Parker in that series.

Kobe didn't have a better series vs Orlando than Lebron did. If you watched the Orlando series, the problems were that Cleveland had absolutely no one to guard Dwight, and Rashard Lewis was a huge mismatch vs Cleveland's bigger 4s. You talk about Cleveland being a buzzer beater from going down 2-0, but Cleveland goes up 1-0 if not for Rashard's game-winner, and they tie the series 2-2 if Rashard doesn't send game 4 to OT with a 3. And that's with the 2 mismatches I mentioned, and Lebron's second option shooting 37%. Plus, Mike Brown was badly outcoached by Van Gundy and failed to make any adjustments when it was clear things weren't working.

Lebron really did almost all he could in that series. If I want to nitpick, I'd say a poor game 6 when very few thought Cleveland was even going to win the series(with Lebron also having averaged 41/9/8 through the first 5 games) and the turnovers late in game 4. But considering Lebron pretty much kept Cleveland competitive by himself, I can't hold those things against him much.

Kobe had a much better series against Orlando than Lebron did. By a massive margin. The Cavaliers were behind that entire series. The only thing Lebron did was put up stats. There was nothing about that series that he did that was great and it's one of the great examples of what I don't like about Lebron. He's a guy who can and does do everything and he does often make players better. Lebron put up stats even when he didn't play well. If he played as well as Kobe did, then the Cavaliers beat the Magic. Yes, SVG outcoached Brown (which I've said before) and he was a better coach. I also think that Howard's supporting cast was better by then. Cleveland had the homecourt advantage and they had Lebron. Even with SVG, the advantage would be to Cleveland, on the basis of homecourt and the best player. He didn't play as well as Howard did that series and that people don't find the right criticisms for him in that series is incredible. If he was as good as his stats, then Orlando doesn't win. Point blank.

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 10:02 PM

Whoah you are one of the most annoying posters on this website because you constantly try to act clever and come with strong opinions when it is obvious that you dont even know what you are talking about. It is like you are looking for an excuse to type up an essay where you just regurgitate some bullshit while adding your own twist and narrative while providing zero basketball insight. At least the trolls are blatant and are occasionally funny.

Do you know how stupid the bolded shit makes you look? 2009 and 2010 were not kobe's best seasons, kobe was CLEARLY a superior player during the 07-08 season where he played some of his basketball in his career. Yet according to your logic kobe was clearly better in 2010 because he won that year and lost in 2008. Your simplistic and childish way of looking at things does not take into account the fact that he had artest in place of radmanovic to guard pierce and had an experienced and focused version of pau.

No buddy. Kobe was better, in the end, because he was better in the playoffs. In the 09 run, he had a bad series against Houston. That team acted entitled, despite the fact they weren't yet champions. But from that series on, he was a beast in the playoffs. Lebron did have two great series to open the playoffs. In the ECF's, he kept his stats but they didn't translate into great play. I don't mean his team didn't play great, I mean he didn't. He was not impressive in that series. He was a good player with insane stats. They even showed a couple of the games from that series before this season started, and I watched them. It was no different than how I remembered it. He got his stats but his impact wasn't great.

Lebron was the MVP in 09/10. I had Wade as the MVP the year before, tho I have no problems with Lebron. I had Kobe 3rd in 09 and 4th in 10. But in the playoffs, he was better. In 2010, Lebron didn't even have a good series against Boston. Kobe was great in every round of the playoffs that year, including the Finals, where the only thing that wasn't impressive was his FG%.

So you can be annoyed if you like, but I didn't say it to be clever. I said it because it's the truth. Kobe had three great series in 2009 and he literally got better in each round. Lebron was great for two and was no more than good in that ECF's. I'm hardly the first person to take Kobe in either of those runs, especially in 2010.

red1

01-17-2013, 10:12 PM

No buddy. Kobe was better, in the end, because he was better in the playoffs. In the 09 run, he had a bad series against Houston. That team acted entitled, despite the fact they weren't yet champions. But from that series on, he was a beast in the playoffs. Lebron did have two great series to open the playoffs. In the ECF's, he kept his stats but they didn't translate into great play. I don't mean his team didn't play great, I mean he didn't. He was not impressive in that series. He was a good player with insane stats. They even showed a couple of the games from that series before this season started, and I watched them. It was no different than how I remembered it. He got his stats but his impact wasn't great.

Lebron was the MVP in 09/10. I had Wade as the MVP the year before, tho I have no problems with Lebron. I had Kobe 3rd in 09 and 4th in 10. But in the playoffs, he was better. In 2010, Lebron didn't even have a good series against Boston. Kobe was great in every round of the playoffs that year, including the Finals, where the only thing that wasn't impressive was his FG%.

So you can be annoyed if you like, but I didn't say it to be clever. I said it because it's the truth. Kobe had three great series in 2009 and he literally got better in each round. Lebron was great for two and was no more than good in that ECF's. I'm hardly the first person to take Kobe in either of those runs, especially in 2010.
I saw EVERY SINGLE GAME in both series and no, kobe was not the better in the playoffs and he was not better against the magic. I already think that you are a dumbass and but you are just confirming it further when you can't realize why kobe won against orlando and why lbj didn't. Did lebron have the laker frontcourt neutralizing dwight keeping him from going off the way he did against z? Did lebron have ariza to help him guard on the perimiter? Did lebron have fisher making clutch shots? No to all of them.

The fact that you say it is laughable and hilarious to consider lbj the better player in 09 just proves my point.

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 10:26 PM

I saw EVERY SINGLE GAME in both series and no, kobe was not the better in the playoffs and he was not better against the magic. I already think that you are a dumbass and but you are just confirming it further when you can't realize why kobe won against orlando and why lbj didn't. Did lebron have the laker frontcourt neutralizing dwight keeping him from going off the way he did against z? Did lebron have ariza to help him guard on the perimiter? Did lebron have fisher making clutch shots? No to all of them.

The fact that you say it is laughable and hilarious to consider lbj the better player in 09 just proves my point.

It's funny. Because one thing I do when I argue is that I acknowledge things that go against my point, because I believe them to be true. I've already said that I think Howard's teammates were better than Lebron's. I still beleive that. Lebron's team was better during the year, but by the time the playoffs started, I think Howard's team caught up. But James played his own game in that series. Yea, he didn't have a championship caliber team. Neither did Howard. But if Lebron's stats reflected his impact in that series, Orlando doesn't win. Orlando's team was better, but they were not significantly better. They did have a great coach tho and a coach that was much better than Mike Brown (no offense to him). That coach made adjustments and did what great coaches do. If they switched coaches, does Cleveland win the series? Probably not, but I'd respect the opinion.

But all this talk of me acknowledging (in fact, being the first to say) that Howard's team was better actually got me to thinking. I said that, by that point in the season, Howard's team had come along and was better. And then I tried to remember Nelson coming back from injury. And I remembered that he -if I'm correct- didn't play until the Finals. An essential piece in arguing that Howard's team was better is Jameer Nelson. And he didn't play. The Magic still went into Cleveland, without homecourt advantage, vastly outplayed them, and won in 6.

The Lakers had the best team in the league. But Kobe Bryant was amazing in the Finals. Lebron James was a lot of stats. You can argue. Go ahead. Maybe I'm not giving him enough credit. But to think that he was anywhere near the numbers he put up? How does that average Orlando team beat them like that? He wasn't near that impact. Bryant was.

Tell me I'm not being fair to Lebron. But Lebron didn't have great impact and Bryant had his best series. Calling me an idiot when you think otherwise hardly means anything to me.

Whoah10115

01-17-2013, 10:28 PM

Yet if we're talking about if a gun was put to my head and I flat out said who I thought was the best player based on ability, longevity, expectations, etc and not necessarily that particular season's performance from a player? Meaning no context driven narratives or voter fatigue such as: Iverson, Nash, Dirk, Rose, Durant, etc.

That's something else tho, isn't it? I'd obviously change my list if this is the question.

I don't think you can really argue Shaq after 2002/03. He wasn't the same player after that. How was Shaq better than Duncan after 2003?

ShaqAttack3234

01-18-2013, 02:39 PM

Shaq bothers me. He's a guy who gets away with so much it's honestly astonishing. Jason Kidd was certainly better in the regular season. Duncan as the MVP was actually fine with me, but no one else should have been in the discussion. The Lakers should have been eliminated by the Kings and Shaq lived off horrific officiating in that series. That Nets team is the worst team I've seen in the Finals.

I don't think there's one person who would have taken Kidd over Shaq in 2002, not in MVP voting, but as a better player. Really, the top 3 was set in most people's minds as Shaq, Duncan and Kobe. Many had Kobe 2nd, but after those 3, you can put Kidd in the next tier for that season with Garnett, T-Mac and C-Webb.

Duncan was my choice for regular season MVP, and I think it was pretty clear, but I actually would have had Shaq 2nd in voting above Kidd. The Lakers went 51-16 in the games Shaq played, just 1 fewer win than the Nets had with Kidd in all 82. Shaq had the better cast, but also played in a much tougher conference. It's tough to say the gap between conferences was ever bigger. And Shaq's cast wasn't that good without him considering they went 7-8 in a pretty soft schedule without him.

Even if you think Kidd had a more MVP type season because of Shaq's missed games, there was nothing to suggest he was a better player than Shaq at this point. Shaq was still the best offensive player in the game, and a real presence defensively. The Lakers led the league in opponents FG% and opponents FG% in the paint. I love Kidd, but it's not close as far as who the better player was. Kidd was even better in '03, while Shaq was worse than '02 and it was still clear that Shaq was the better player.

As far as the Kings series, the officiating was bad throughout, but Shaq individually didn't live off it. In the '02 season, he had 10.7 FTA while taking 18.3 FGA in 36.1 mpg. In the Kings series, he had just 9.9 FTA while taking 22.6 FGA in 41.1 mpg.

It's a shame because officiating like that makes it difficult for me to appreciate Shaq, even when I know he's one of the best I've seen. But also, that lack of a team that was the Nets...throughout that entire Finals I saw Kidd literally have to do everything and there's only so much one guy can do. I was more impressed with him.

I really don't get this. It only tells the story from one side. Guys also use to foul Shaq all the time and it wasn't called. There was so much physical play, you had to let some things go. Besides, the superstars usually get more of the calls anyway. Nothing new here.

Nash over Duncan isn't that puzzling. We both agree he was better than Duncan was that regular season. In the playoffs, Nash was better than he was. What Duncan has over him is the Finals. Duncan didn't play better than Nash did in the WCF's. His team was better. Duncan then went on to have a terrific Finals against Detroit, but I think Ginobili was the FMVP and I think that that full picture is in Nash's favor. With that said, I have no problem with Duncan over him and I thought about it. The Finals is the most important and Duncan was there, playing great. But that's the only advantage for him throughout the season.

I never said Nash was better than Duncan that regular season, I said Nash had more of a case for MVP because of Duncan missing 16 games and the Suns regular season success which was largely attributed to Nash leading both their famous transition game and half court offense. But I think it was clear that Duncan was still the better player. Again, I don't think there was a single GM who would take Nash over Duncan. Duncan was still at the top of his game at both ends. His defense was comparable to the best in the league, and a huge part of why he was a better player than Nash. That was the Spurs greatest strength. Offensively, he was still the first option on a good offense. He wasn't as dominant during the playoffs due to some nagging injuries, but he still got the job done. Ginobili was unbelievable, but it's clear who the Spurs would have missed more.

Nash over Kobe in 07 is not a discussion with which you could possibly disagree. The reason is simple: I believe you agreed that Nash was better than Kobe that season. Nash's team took out Kobe's team in the first round. Was Kobe that epic in the loss? How could Kobe have played better than Nash? Unless you change your mind that Kobe was better in the regular season, which I think is fine. But I've never seen you say that so I can't understand what your argument would be.

I've always thought Kobe was the better player at that point. The only thing I've said is that I have a tough time giving him MVP because of how close the Lakers were to the .500 mark. We saw two parts of Kobe's game that year. Early on, he was playing more of the facilitator role and the Lakers were really overachieving and as good as 26-13 at one point before most of their key players got injured. Later in the year, Phil told Kobe to shoot more to snap a losing streak and Kobe responded with one of the great scoring streaks ever. Immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, Kobe had 4 consecutive 50+ games, including two 60+ games in their, and over the last 17 games, he averaged 40+ with seven 50 point games.

And as far as Duncan. Duncan was nowhere near the same guy then. Nash was levels above him in the regular season. Ginobili and Parker was beastly through the playoffs and, thankfully, they didn't give Duncan the FMVP. One of the craziest things I've seen is people arguing for Duncan as the 2007 FMVP. The argument for him was that he was their best player. He didn't play as well as Parker in that series.

I wouldn't say Duncan was nowhere near the same guy. He had lost some athleticism, and they played him fewer minutes, but he still did the things that made him great in the first place. The Spurs were looking to the playoffs, but Duncan was very consistent throughout, including an excellent playoff run. A much better year than the season he had in '06 when he had plantar fasciitis.

Kobe had a much better series against Orlando than Lebron did. By a massive margin. The Cavaliers were behind that entire series. The only thing Lebron did was put up stats. There was nothing about that series that he did that was great and it's one of the great examples of what I don't like about Lebron. He's a guy who can and does do everything and he does often make players better. Lebron put up stats even when he didn't play well. If he played as well as Kobe did, then the Cavaliers beat the Magic. Yes, SVG outcoached Brown (which I've said before) and he was a better coach. I also think that Howard's supporting cast was better by then. Cleveland had the homecourt advantage and they had Lebron. Even with SVG, the advantage would be to Cleveland, on the basis of homecourt and the best player. He didn't play as well as Howard did that series and that people don't find the right criticisms for him in that series is incredible. If he was as good as his stats, then Orlando doesn't win. Point blank.

I don't agree. Kobe honestly wasn't that impressive after his huge first game. He still had a very good series, but I definitely don't agree that Lebron playing as well as Kobe would have been enough for Cleveland to win.

Think about it, what does this have to do with Cleveland's main problems? Those were match up problems, primarily having absolutely nobody to guard Howard or Lewis and bad coaching in the series. Lewis didn't play like a star in that series as he had vs Cleveland, largely because the Lakers having Odom took away a lot of the match up advantages Lewis had. And both Gasol and Bynum did a very good job vs Howard while he absolutely destroyed Cleveland's frontline. Kobe did play good help defense on Howard, but that's hardly the main difference.

Despite Howard and Lewis not coming close to their Cleveland series, and both Gasol and Odom playing very well as opposed to Mo Williams and Ilgauskas, the Laker series was still competitive despite it ending in 5 games. The Magic had a chance to win game 2 in regulation, but Courtney Lee missed the alley oop lay up at the buzzer, and they completely gave away game 4 which would have tied the series 2-2. Those type of things weren't happening for Orlando vs Cleveland.

Lebron wasn't quite as great as his stats suggest in the Orlando series, but he still had a major impact. If he hadn't, Cleveland wouldn't have been competitive with the match up problems and how his teammates were playing.

AussieG

01-18-2013, 02:55 PM

All I know is.. LeBron has been the best player in the league for years.

Durant is sort of close.. Durant is a better scorer but LeBron is a better overall player.

Whoah10115

01-18-2013, 03:14 PM

I don't think there's one person who would have taken Kidd over Shaq in 2002, not in MVP voting, but as a better player. Really, the top 3 was set in most people's minds as Shaq, Duncan and Kobe. Many had Kobe 2nd, but after those 3, you can put Kidd in the next tier for that season with Garnett, T-Mac and C-Webb.

Duncan was my choice for regular season MVP, and I think it was pretty clear, but I actually would have had Shaq 2nd in voting above Kidd. The Lakers went 51-16 in the games Shaq played, just 1 fewer win than the Nets had with Kidd in all 82. Shaq had the better cast, but also played in a much tougher conference. It's tough to say the gap between conferences was ever bigger. And Shaq's cast wasn't that good without him considering they went 7-8 in a pretty soft schedule without him.

Even if you think Kidd had a more MVP type season because of Shaq's missed games, there was nothing to suggest he was a better player than Shaq at this point. Shaq was still the best offensive player in the game, and a real presence defensively. The Lakers led the league in opponents FG% and opponents FG% in the paint. I love Kidd, but it's not close as far as who the better player was. Kidd was even better in '03, while Shaq was worse than '02 and it was still clear that Shaq was the better player.

As far as the Kings series, the officiating was bad throughout, but Shaq individually didn't live off it. In the '02 season, he had 10.7 FTA while taking 18.3 FGA in 36.1 mpg. In the Kings series, he had just 9.9 FTA while taking 22.6 FGA in 41.1 mpg.

Wait, what are we arguing? My list isn't based on who the best player was after the season, but who had the better season. I'm not saying Shaq wasn't the best player in basketball in 2002. In fact, I remember going to the dentist and reading a Sporting News magazine where they ranked the top 25 players in the NBA. The order was Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, KG, McGrady, Kidd, Webber, Dirk, Pierce, Iverson. I won't go past that but the point is I was talking with my friend and told him I couldn't understand the argument for any 3 ahead of that 3. So I get that. I'm talking about the season tho. So maybe that's where the disconnect is.

Kidd's game transcended stats more than any one player I've ever seen. That season was the greatest example. That team sucked. He created transition, was the best defensive guard in the league. There isn't a guy in the league that year that you would trade him for that would make the Nets nearly as good as they were. Shaq was a monster so I don't discredit that, but Kidd's play was better, to me, throughout that season.

I really don't get this. It only tells the story from one side. Guys also use to foul Shaq all the time and it wasn't called. There was so much physical play, you had to let some things go. Besides, the superstars usually get more of the calls anyway. Nothing new here.

Shaq was still great but the calls in that series were too much. The Kings won that series.

But in general, the fouls Shaq suffered were never equal to what he dished out. I'm not calling his career into question or anything, but it was ridiculous. He was the best player in basketball over that 3peat. Easily. So don't think that I'm arguing otherwise. And he's not just a product of bad officiating. I do think he got away with exorbitant amount.

I've always thought Kobe was the better player at that point. The only thing I've said is that I have a tough time giving him MVP because of how close the Lakers were to the .500 mark. We saw two parts of Kobe's game that year. Early on, he was playing more of the facilitator role and the Lakers were really overachieving and as good as 26-13 at one point before most of their key players got injured. Later in the year, Phil told Kobe to shoot more to snap a losing streak and Kobe responded with one of the great scoring streaks ever. Immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, Kobe had 4 consecutive 50+ games, including two 60+ games in their, and over the last 17 games, he averaged 40+ with seven 50 point games.

I get that. I think that's Kobe's best season (regular season). But I understand the arguments against him.

I never said Nash was better than Duncan that regular season, I said Nash had more of a case for MVP because of Duncan missing 16 games and the Suns regular season success which was largely attributed to Nash leading both their famous transition game and half court offense. But I think it was clear that Duncan was still the better player. Again, I don't think there was a single GM who would take Nash over Duncan. Duncan was still at the top of his game at both ends. His defense was comparable to the best in the league, and a huge part of why he was a better player than Nash. That was the Spurs greatest strength. Offensively, he was still the first option on a good offense. He wasn't as dominant during the playoffs due to some nagging injuries, but he still got the job done. Ginobili was unbelievable, but it's clear who the Spurs would have missed more.

I'm not saying Nash was a better player than Duncan was in 2005. I actually thought Garnett was the best player in the NBA, even with his lousy ass team. But I had Duncan in second. Again, I was just referring to the season.

As far as the FMVP, you could say that about any best player in any series where he isn't the best in that series. I'm not saying Duncan might not have been the best player in the series, but the fact that he was the best player on the team and that the team would miss him more is not a fair reflection on who was better in the series. Those are two different things. They'd certainly miss Duncan more. Doesn't make him the best player in that series (tho I would have no problem with you thinking that he did play the best).

I wouldn't say Duncan was nowhere near the same guy. He had lost some athleticism, and they played him fewer minutes, but he still did the things that made him great in the first place. The Spurs were looking to the playoffs, but Duncan was very consistent throughout, including an excellent playoff run. A much better year than the season he had in '06 when he had plantar fasciitis.

The reason Duncan wasn't the same had little to do with him physically. I think that the Spurs are the least impressive dynasty. Not that much of an insult, as they're still a dynasty. But I always thought they did just enough- in a watered down league -to win. I think that Duncan became more and more of a cog after 2003/04. I also think people fail to recognize that and fail to fully appreciate Ginobili. I also think that everyone on that team was a cog and that Duncan was obviously #1, and that is part of why Ginobili doesn't get the attention he deserves or the freedom he deserves, which goes beyond the stats he puts up. But that's another topic. I just think that Duncan didn't have the same approach and he played within the system a lot more after 2004...and that's on both sides of the ball. He should have moved to center in 2003, and that's for certain. Maybe he'd have taken a different approach.

But to make clear for those (not you) who think I'm saying Duncan is a cog; I am NOT saying that. He played more like one after 2004. The difference between Duncan before and after 2004 is pretty big. And he didn't become much lesser of a player, if at all. But Popovich overmanaged him.

I don't agree. Kobe honestly wasn't that impressive after his huge first game. He still had a very good series, but I definitely don't agree that Lebron playing as well as Kobe would have been enough for Cleveland to win.

Think about it, what does this have to do with Cleveland's main problems? Those were match up problems, primarily having absolutely nobody to guard Howard or Lewis and bad coaching in the series. Lewis didn't play like a star in that series as he had vs Cleveland, largely because the Lakers having Odom took away a lot of the match up advantages Lewis had. And both Gasol and Bynum did a very good job vs Howard while he absolutely destroyed Cleveland's frontline. Kobe did play good help defense on Howard, but that's hardly the main difference.

Despite Howard and Lewis not coming close to their Cleveland series, and both Gasol and Odom playing very well as opposed to Mo Williams and Ilgauskas, the Laker series was still competitive despite it ending in 5 games. The Magic had a chance to win game 2 in regulation, but Courtney Lee missed the alley oop lay up at the buzzer, and they completely gave away game 4 which would have tied the series 2-2. Those type of things weren't happening for Orlando vs Cleveland.

Lebron wasn't quite as great as his stats suggest in the Orlando series, but he still had a major impact. If he hadn't, Cleveland wouldn't have been competitive with the match up problems and how his teammates were playing.

I admit, I should give Lebron more credit. But I still don't think he was great in that series. I don't think his defense was where it was in the regular season. I don't think he made anyone around him better. I'm not holding it against him that he didn't win, but I do think he could have done better. And I disagree very strongly on Bryant. He played on a great team and there is no doubt about that. But he also deserves more credit for playing within it. Lebron had to do more on his team, as his team wasn't that good, but he often didn't know when to and when not to. I stand by that.

ShaqAttack3234

01-18-2013, 03:22 PM

Wait, what are we arguing? My list isn't based on who the best player was after the season, but who had the better season. I'm not saying Shaq wasn't the best player in basketball in 2002. In fact, I remember going to the dentist and reading a Sporting News magazine where they ranked the top 25 players in the NBA. The order was Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, KG, McGrady, Kidd, Webber, Dirk, Pierce, Iverson. I won't go past that but the point is I was talking with my friend and told him I couldn't understand the argument for any 3 ahead of that 3. So I get that. I'm talking about the season tho. So maybe that's where the disconnect is.

I'm not saying Nash was a better player than Duncan was in 2005. I actually thought Garnett was the best player in the NBA, even with his lousy ass team. But I had Duncan in second. Again, I was just referring to the season.

The reason Duncan wasn't the same had little to do with him physically. I think that the Spurs are the least impressive dynasty. Not that much of an insult, as they're still a dynasty. But I always thought they did just enough- in a watered down league -to win. I think that Duncan became more and more of a cog after 2003/04. I also think people fail to recognize that and fail to fully appreciate Ginobili. I also think that everyone on that team was a cog and that Duncan was obviously #1, and that is part of why Ginobili doesn't get the attention he deserves or the freedom he deserves, which goes beyond the stats he puts up. But that's another topic. I just think that Duncan didn't have the same approach and he played within the system a lot more after 2004...and that's on both sides of the ball. He should have moved to center in 2003, and that's for certain. Maybe he'd have taken a different approach.

I admit, I should give Lebron more credit. But I still don't think he was great in that series. I don't think his defense was where it was in the regular season. I don't think he made anyone around him better. I'm not holding it against him that he didn't win, but I do think he could have done better. And I disagree very strongly on Bryant. He played on a great team and there is no doubt about that. But he also deserves more credit for playing within it. Lebron had to do more on his team, as his team wasn't that good, but he often didn't know when to and when not to. I stand by that.

Ok, well, then I did misunderstand. Even so, I can't see Kidd having a better overall season than Shaq if you include the playoffs.

As far as the Lebron vs Kobe part, I think you make some valid points. Kobe did play within his team's offense more, and Lebron's defense wasn't great in the ECF. Though it's kind of tough to average 39/8/8 and play great defense.

I think it's tough to compare how they played within their team's offenses, though. Kobe has always been the better off the ball player, but he played in the triangle, while Lebron's Cavs didn't have much of an offense aside from "Lebron ball." That's one of the things I think got exposed late in the playoffs. They had won 66 games that way and dominated the first 2 playoff rounds, but it's very tough to win a championship that way. I don't see it being any different with Kobe in Cleveland under Mike Brown instead of Lebron. We've seen Kobe under Mike Brown last year, and I thought he was holding the ball longer and I didn't like his approach as much. But if you take away Gasol and Bynum, I don't see him playing within an offense under Mike Brown anymore than Lebron did.

Kingwillball

01-18-2013, 03:27 PM

Lebron 2008 or 2009 to Present...He has been the best Player the past 4 to 5 years Anybody disagreeing with that is Obviously Blind. He has been Top 3 since 2006.

Whoah10115

01-18-2013, 03:48 PM

Ok, well, then I did misunderstand. Even so, I can't see Kidd having a better overall season than Shaq if you include the playoffs.

As far as the Lebron vs Kobe part, I think you make some valid points. Kobe did play within his team's offense more, and Lebron's defense wasn't great in the ECF. Though it's kind of tough to average 39/8/8 and play great defense.

I think it's tough to compare how they played within their team's offenses, though. Kobe has always been the better off the ball player, but he played in the triangle, while Lebron's Cavs didn't have much of an offense aside from "Lebron ball." That's one of the things I think got exposed late in the playoffs. They had won 66 games that way and dominated the first 2 playoff rounds, but it's very tough to win a championship that way. I don't see it being any different with Kobe in Cleveland under Mike Brown instead of Lebron. We've seen Kobe under Mike Brown last year, and I thought he was holding the ball longer and I didn't like his approach as much. But if you take away Gasol and Bynum, I don't see him playing within an offense under Mike Brown anymore than Lebron did.

To be fair to Lebron, Kobe should be a better off-ball player. Kobe is a scorer and a SG. Lebron is a point forward who has played Lebron since high school.

I do think that Lebron ball rids the room of argument tho. I think people see all these things and conclude he must be the best. You see the same thing happen in soccer with the way Messi is playing. The guy is scoring more goals in a calendar year than great players (whose job is to score) do over 3 years. Both sports are similar in that general off-ball movement is essential. But too many conservative and simple-minded front offices and coaches (and analysts and journalists) decide that the best guy can do everything, so he should.

It's not easy to gage who does more, considering different teams are built differently. But you could have these arguments 10 years ago without just going "He leads in this and that". That's too bad.

And I agree that Lebron ball could not win a title. He couldn't do it in the West either, because the better teams would catch up and all the wear and tear would catch up to him. But I think that Kobe, jumping into that series, would have likely beaten Orlando. But I most certainly think he plays better than James. I think it's a problem for a guy's impact to be so much less than his numbers, when his numbers are that crazy. In this case, I think it's indicative of an approach that isn't going to win and one that's difficult to justify as being great play.