" He hasn't won a title without................"

[Lakers2877]

Is easily the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It's amazing to me how many people use this argument. Yes Kobe didn't win a title with Smush Parker, Luke Walton and Kwame Brown in the starting lineup with him. Im sure so many other players would have piled up the titles with that supporting group...No Kobe has not won a title without Shaq or Gasol. Now the other greats

Magic- no titles without Kareem and Worthy
Lebron- no titles without Wade
Bird- no titles without McHale
Jordan- no titles without Pippen

And on and on it goes. Why do people insist on using this absurdly retarded argument when it comes to Kobe? It's a joke

[IncarceratedBob]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.

[alanLA92]

Just ignore. The only reason people continue to use this argument is because they know Kobe stans get some of dat butthurt.

[TylerOO]

Sorry was Wade useful or something in the playoffs? He's an overpaid decoy

[GreatHILL]

yes its dumb, but why u care about what ppl say? fuccem

[imdaman99]

Sorry was Wade useful or something in the playoffs? He's an overpaid decoy
sorry but while you were making threads jumping off the lebron bandwagon, wade was winning game 4 on his own in san antonio :roll:

[KG215]

I agree, it's a dumb argument, but the worst Kobe fanboys on here use it to prop him up, too, when they say things like Shaq and Pau couldn't win until he teamed up with Kobe.

[SuperPippen]

I absolutely agree. Every all time great player needs a good supporting cast to win a chip.

Kobe had Shaq during the 3-peat, and later had a great supporting cast featuring Pau Gasol, amongst others..

MJ had Pippen, Grant, Rodman, etc.

When a great player plays a shit team, you get situations like the mid 2000s Lakers, or the late 80s Bulls: plenty of individual brilliance from two legendary players, but little in the way of team success.

It could be argued that Kobe was part of Shaq's supporting cast during the 3-peat, but since Kobe himself was already such a terrific player, such an argument doesn't hold much weight.

[Qwertyazerty]

Can we apply the same logic to "He hasn't won a single PO game without..."?

[Lakers2877]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.
Oh I see. Magic, bird etc wouldn't have needed any help to win titles.

Can't argue with that. I mean, you said it so its gotta be true

[Sarcastic]

Sorry was Wade useful or something in the playoffs? He's an overpaid decoy


Then why couldn't Lebron win without him in Cleveland?

[SpurrDurr]

Totally agree, none can win alone in a team sport. Even a player with a small role can step up in a certain game and decide the outcome of the entire season. It's not always about stars, everyone matters.

[AintNoSunshine]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.


True alpha's perform on the biggest stage, whereas the 3rd tiers like Kobe had his balls shrunked and had to be carried by Ron Artest:confusedshrug:

[Lebron23]

basketball is a team sports.

[r15mohd]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.


Please explain/justify Kobe missing the playoffs and 1st round exits...seems to fit under the same bold criteria you have above :rolleyes:

[SilkkTheShocker]

Then why couldn't Lebron win without him in Cleveland?

I would imagine because his 2nd best player was Mo Williams. And it didn't help that he played like shit in back to back postseasons.

[Straight_Ballin]

Is easily the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It's amazing to me how many people use this argument. Yes Kobe didn't win a title with Smush Parker, Luke Walton and Kwame Brown in the starting lineup with him. Im sure so many other players would have piled up the titles with that supporting group...No Kobe has not won a title without Shaq or Gasol. Now the other greats

Magic- no titles without Kareem and Worthy
Lebron- no titles without Wade
Bird- no titles without McHale
Jordan- no titles without Pippen

And on and on it goes. Why do people insist on using this absurdly retarded argument when it comes to Kobe? It's a joke

Real players don't need to team up with other superstars. See Billups, the Wallaces, Prince, and Rip Hamilton. Which one of them scored over 20ppg?

True winners.

Deal with it!

[Random_Guy]

lol you're absolutely right, but basically this exists because kobetards like to bash lebron stans for not being able to win without other HOFs. Its a legit argument because both havent been able to win it all by themselves yet, at least, up until now that is(but lets be real here, who has won it all himself?).
It's simply an argument in the ish community because it seems to be impossible for most posters here to accept that both are equally great players.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Lebron mythologists becoming aware that Wade AND Bosh are the proverbial Shaq monkey on his back.

Will Lebron be able to win again (and again) with just Bosh in the future?

[0000000]

I personally believe there are no more than 4 or 5 players at any momrnt that are capablr to lead the team to the champiinship. It is extremely rare that a team wins the championship without that top 5 player or most often, the bedt player in the league. Such team will win once or at most twice in a decade.
Having that individual superstar is an essential part of winning a ring.

However, it is a team sport. It is much easier when you have that top 5 player or the best player but you still need to build a great team around him.

For example, LeBron was the best player this year, easily. But without Ray Allen's 3pointer, Battier going 6/6 from the 3 in last game, Chalmes hitting daggers again, they don't win.

It's a team sport but you pretty much have to have the best player IMO.
I think Heat/Pacers series was a perfect demonstration of that.

[livingby3's]

the mass population here just say whatever fits their agenda. different standards and opinions for the different topics. not like it's a bad thing, views of individuals differ bring along discussions.
It's just the dumb trolls shitting daily on these boards

[Skip Bayless]

LeBron ran to Miami to hide behind Wade. Lets just state the truth here OP.

[rustycage]

"He hasn't won a title without................" is a simple statement, which is either true or false. On the other side "He couldn't have won without......" is just lazy and captious thinking.

[riseagainst]

I agree, it's a dumb argument, but the worst Kobe fanboys on here use it to prop him up, too, when they say things like Shaq and Pau couldn't win until he teamed up with Kobe.

pretty sure the whole "kobe could not win without Shaq" thing started long before all this. Look how that turned out.

[livingby3's]

"He hasn't won a title without................" is a simple statement, which is either true or false. On the other side "He couldn't have won without......" is just lazy and captious thinking.

similarly, for "He would have won even without........."

[Yao Ming's Foot]

pretty sure the whole "kobe could not win without Shaq" thing started long before all this. Look how that turned out.

Yeah Kobe stacking with rings with just Pau and Lebron teaming up with Wade AND Bosh sure resulted in some revisionist history.

[KG215]

Yeah Kobe stacking with rings with just Pau and Lebron teaming up with Wade AND Bosh sure resulted in some revisionist history.
:facepalm

You are aware that, with Pau in 2009 and 2010, Kobe had the best second banana in the NBA at the time, right?

Just because he's a historically weak second option doesn't make the championships anymore impressive if he was the strongest #2 on a contender the years they won championships.

[Nash]

Agree, while we're at it, let's stop using the "he has more championships" argument for why a player is individually better than another player.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:facepalm

You are aware that, with Pau in 2009 and 2010, Kobe had the best second banana in the NBA at the time, right?

Just because he's a historically weak second option doesn't make the championships anymore impressive if he was the strongest #2 on a contender the years they won championships.

He did at the time or he did after they won? The perception that Pau was in a separate tier than the usual all star contending big men in the West during that time period does not match reality.

[97 bulls]

Its the ultimate oxymoron. Said player gets all the credit when their team wins. While the rest of the team gets no credit. But when the team loses, said player is excused while his team take all the blame.

[RRR3]

LeBron ran to Miami to hide behind Wade. Lets just state the truth here OP.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=304612

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

You are aware that, with Pau in 2009 and 2010, Kobe had the best second banana in the NBA at the time, right?

Just because he's a historically weak second option doesn't make the championships anymore impressive if he was the strongest #2 on a contender the years they won championships.
How is Gasol a historically weak second option? He gives you 20 pts a night. Id take him to lead my team over Kevin Mchale. And you love him.

[KG215]

How is Gasol a historically weak second option? He gives you 20 pts a night. Id take him to lead my team over Kevin Mchale. And you love him.
If you have to pick between McHale and Gasol to build a team around, you're picking Gasol?

[MastaKilla]

:facepalm

You are aware that, with Pau in 2009 and 2010, Kobe had the best second banana in the NBA at the time, right?

Just because he's a historically weak second option doesn't make the championships anymore impressive if he was the strongest #2 on a contender the years they won championships.

Pau Gasol was a better second option than KG? Tim Duncan/ Tony Parker (whichever you consider the 2nd option in those years) A healthy Amare? Boozer?

There were plenty of 2nd options during that time who were just as good

[KG215]

He did at the time or he did after they won? The perception that Pau was in a separate tier than the usual all star contending big men in the West during that time period does not match reality.
Which other contender had a second banana as good as Pau in 2009 in 2010? I don't care what the perception of Pau was before that. The fact of the matter is, he was a VERY good/elite player (especially for a 2nd option) in 2009 and 2010. The revisionist history of Kobe fanboys like you, about what Gasol was before that, is just as bad as anything else.

In 2009 he averaged 19-10-4-1 on 57% FG and 62% TS, with a .223 WS/48 (.200 is usually about superstar level) and a 22.2 PER. In the playoffs he averaged 18-11-3-2-1 on 58% FG and 62% TS with .221 WS/48 and 21.9 PER.

In 2010 he averaged 18-11-3-2 on 54% FG and 59% TS with a .220 WS/48 and a 22.9 PER. In the playoffs he averaged 20-11-4-2 on 54% FG and 60% TS with .224 WS/48 and a 24 PER. He led the NBA in OWS and total WS in the playoffs.

He was a damn good second option, especially when you compare him to the other second best players on the other contenders at the time.

[97 bulls]

If you have to pick between McHale and Gasol to build a team around, you're picking Gasol?
Why wouldnt you? Kevin Mchale FAILED at leading a team. Had it not been for expansion, the Celtics probably win 30 games in 1989.

Why would you take Mchale over Gasol?

[livinglegend]

LeBron ran to Miami to hide behind Wade. Lets just state the truth here OP.

Not only am I guaranteeing a Spurs victory, but I'm also willing to BAN MYSELF UNTIL THE START OF THE NEXT NBA SEASON If the Spurs shall lose!



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=304612



:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[KG215]

Pau Gasol was a better second option than KG? Tim Duncan/ Tony Parker (whichever you consider the 2nd option in those years) A healthy Amare? Boozer?

There were plenty of 2nd options during that time who were just as good
Garnett wasn't healthy in 2009, so yes. LeBron had Mo Williams and Carmelo had Billups, Gasol was better than both. And, yes, with how he played in 2009 and 2010, he was better than Tony Parker. I'll give you Amare, because from what I remember, he was better than Gasol in the 2010 WCF, but you could probably argue he was Phoenix's best player that year.

My main point is that Kobe fanboys want to downplay Gasol's significance and how good he was in 2009 and 2010 when, the fact of the matter is, he was very good for a second option relative to the league at the time.

[KG215]

Why wouldnt you? Kevin Mchale FAILED at leading a team. Had it not been for expansion, the Celtics probably win 30 games in 1989.

Why would you take Mchale over Gasol?
I'm not going to pretend to know enough about the late 80's Celtcs to get into this argument, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority of people that would choose Pau over McHale to lead a team.

[crisoner]

Wow....so after years and years of arguing there are two point of views in these threads.

1. Kobe sucks...he got carried by Pau, Lamar, Artest, Shaq, and Fisher to titles. Shaq carried Kobe in the first three titles Kobe had nothing to do with those. He is overrated and is not even in the top 20 of greatest players ever.


2. Kobe is the greatest ever...Gasol never got passed the first round before and is soft. Shaq never won a title before Kobe and only one after. Kobe is better then Jordan.




Both sides.....STFU already.

[97 bulls]

I'm not going to pretend to know enough about the late 80's Celtcs to get into this argument, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority of people that would choose Pau over McHale to lead a team.
I don't see where an argument needs to be made. Gasol faired much better leading a team when compared to Mchale when he got his shot.

Why is Mchale so revered and Gasol not? Gasol played a huge role in the Lakers runs to the championsip in 09 and 10. They dont win without him. He had better success than Mchale. Why is he looked down upon and Mchale not

[guy]

I don't see where an argument needs to be made. Gasol faired much better leading a team when compared to Mchale when he got his shot.


A lot of that has to do with timing so it really doesn't mean much given a small sample size.

[KG215]

I don't see where an argument needs to be made. Gasol faired much better leading a team when compared to Mchale when he got his shot.

Why is Mchale so revered and Gasol not? Gasol played a huge role in the Lakers runs to the championsip in 09 and 10. They dont win without him. He had better success than Mchale. Why is he looked down upon and Mchale not
Didn't McHale really only have one season to lead his own team? Bird missed almost the entire 1989 season, and I'm guessing DJ and Parrish were up there in age (mid-30's) and past their prime. Not that they were bad players, but I'm sure they had started to slow down.

Bird was back the next year, right? I know he wasn't the same either, but it was still his team when he was [somewhat] healthy and on the floor most of the season. So it sounds like to me you're using a one season sample size to come to the conclusion Pau Gasol would be a better option to build around than Kevin McHale.

Looking at the '89 playoffs, looks like McHale got the same results as Gasol did in Memphis: made the playoffs and got swept in the first round.

[Owl]

Is easily the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It's amazing to me how many people use this argument. Yes Kobe didn't win a title with Smush Parker, Luke Walton and Kwame Brown in the starting lineup with him. Im sure so many other players would have piled up the titles with that supporting group...No Kobe has not won a title without Shaq or Gasol. Now the other greats

Magic- no titles without Kareem and Worthy
Lebron- no titles without Wade
Bird- no titles without McHale
Jordan- no titles without Pippen

And on and on it goes. Why do people insist on using this absurdly retarded argument when it comes to Kobe? It's a joke
"He hasn't won a title without ..." is indeed a terrible argument for any player. It accepts as a premise that individuals (making up, at absolute maximum 1/5th of a teams total minutes, 1/12 of their roster and 1/10 of what is going on on court at any given time (if allocating no influence whatsoever to homecourt, coaches etc) should be measured by team success.

Titles should be very much at the periphery of debating individuals merits otherwise you end up saying John Salley, Steve Kerr and Robert Horry are better than Karl Malone, John Stockton, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing etc

If you say "but those guys weren't the best player on their teams", then you acknowledge that there is a better method for rating players, or else how would you know that John Salley and Ron Harper weren't the best players on the Lakers (most titles at the time).

[97 bulls]

A lot of that has to do with timing so it really doesn't mean much given a small sample size.
Sample size? How? He had a whole year leading the Celtics. With plenty support in an expansion year.

The double standard here is unbelievable. KG215 called Gasol one of the worst second options ever. I assume he means number two guys. How? When a player like Mchale, whos looked at as a god faired far worse in a better situation as the leader of a team.

Gasol gets a bad wrap by so many people. Why? Even more, hes been the scapegoat and underappreciated since he arrived in LA.

The man has been called soft, but plays hurt

He play has been questioned even though hes been relegated to being a jumpshooter. In an effort make way for Bynum and then Howard. Hell the Lakers have been trying to replace Gasol fir the longest. Why? He was never the lroblem. The Lakers went to three straight championships with him manning the post. Winning two. Battling Howard and then Garnett.

Somebody has to be a voice of reason

[guy]

Sample size? How? He had a whole year leading the Celtics. With plenty support in an expansion year.

The double standard here is unbelievable. KG215 called Gasol one of the worst second options ever. I assume he means number two guys. How? When a player like Mchale, whos looked at as a god faired far worse in a better situation as the leader of a team.

Gasol gets a bad wrap by so many people. Why? Even more, hes been the scapegoat and underappreciated since he arrived in LA.

The man has been called soft, but plays hurt

He play has been questioned even though hes been relegated to being a jumpshooter. In an effort make way for Bynum and then Howard. Hell the Lakers have been trying to replace Gasol fir the longest. Why? He was never the lroblem. The Lakers went to three straight championships with him manning the post. Winning two. Battling Howard and then Garnett.

Somebody has to be a voice of reason

I'm only referring to your logic that one proved better as a leader of a team then someone else, which is why he should be considered a better player. One player had like 5-6 seasons to do that while the other had 1 season to do it. You don't see how incredibly ridiculous it is to come up with a conclusion based on that?

[97 bulls]

:roll:
Didn't McHale really only have one season to lead his own team? Bird missed almost the entire 1989 season, and I'm guessing DJ and Parrish were up there in age (mid-30's) and past their prime. Not that they were bad players, but I'm sure they had started to slow down.

Bird was back the next year, right? I know he wasn't the same either, but it was still his team when he was [somewhat] healthy and on the floor most of the season. So it sounds like to me you're using a one season sample size to come to the conclusion Pau Gasol would be a better option to build around than Kevin McHale.

Looking at the '89 playoffs, looks like McHale got the same results as Gasol did in Memphis: made the playoffs and got swept in the first round.
Parrish played at a high level another 5-6 years. Then he had Reggie Lewis. Brian Shaw. Eight wins off expansion teams, totally different circumstances.

My point is why do you consider Gasol a bad number two guy? Hes had more success in the NBA than Kevin Mchake. A guy who's in the top 50

[Fresh Kid]

I agree with this topic except for Lebron James. Lebron had to leave his team as the man to join two superstars having pressure taken off him, begging wade to be batman and all. Lebron James is nothing but a cop-out.

[97 bulls]

I'm only referring to your logic that one proved better as a leader of a team then someone else, which is why he should be considered a better player. One player had like 5-6 seasons to do that while the other had 1 season to do it. You don't see how incredibly ridiculous it is to come up with a conclusion based on that?
Its the same logic I've used in defense of Scottie Pippen. So yes I agree. Funny thing is. You as a Bulls fan defend Mchale and allow people to bash Pippen.


As far as Mchale/Gasol. Had Mchale been moderately successful then I d agree. But he needed extenuating circumstances to lead a 500 team. Like I stated earlier, the Celtics are a mid to low 30 win team without expansiin in 89. They won 57 games the year prior.

[guy]

Its the same logic I've used in defense of Scottie Pippen. So yes I agree. Funny thing is. You as a Bulls fan defend Mchale and allow people to bash Pippen.


As far as Mchale/Gasol. Had Mchale been moderately successful then I d agree. But he needed extenuating circumstances to lead a 500 team. Like I stated earlier, the Celtics are a mid to low 30 win team without expansiin in 89. They won 57 games the year prior.

This isn't about Pippen, and people bash every player that has ever played, and I don't go around defending each and every one of htem.

What do you agree with?

Expansion is extinuating circumstances? He got his teams to the playoffs, which I would say is moderately successful :confusedshrug: Who cares if they won 57 games the previous year? Not every season is the same. Bottom line is 1 season vs. 6 seasons is a huge difference.

If there's 2 bowlers, the first person gets 1 shot, and the second person gets 6 shots, and the first person hits a few pins only, while the second person hits 3 strikes and then 3 others shots where he only hit a few pins, are you completely convinced that the second person is better? Cause if you are, then you must be completely stupid.


Arguments like this are just as dumb as the arguments that Jordan would be nothing without Phil or Pippen, Kobe would be nothing without Gasol or Shaq, etc.

[KG215]

:roll:
Parrish played at a high level another 5-6 years. Then he had Reggie Lewis. Brian Shaw. Eight wins off expansion teams, totally different circumstances.

My point is why do you consider Gasol a bad number two guy? Hes had more success in the NBA than Kevin Mchake. A guy who's in the top 50
Like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the Celtics in the late 80's to try and sound knowledgeable on the state of their players at the time. I knew Parrish and DJ were in their mid or late 30's but that's about it, other than knowing Bird missed that season.

Secondly, I don't think Gasol is a bad number two. When I said historically weak, it was me making fun of the logic of Kobe fanboys who have tried to downplay how good Gasol was by either saying Kobe won 2 rings without a HOF teammate, or trying to argue how weak of a #2 Gasol was in comparison to the #2 option for the other top 10 all-time greats. I understand the confusion and I shouldn't have worded it that way.

But your argument here is extremely weak. Especially since McHale and the Celtics still made the playoffs and got swept in the first round....which is the exact same and best result Gasol accomplished in Memphis. But what puts it over the top is you're using a one season sample size against a 5-6 season sample size.

And I don't know where you got "I love McHale" from. I made one post in that thread, pointing out how ignorant and ridiculous it was to assume that, in '87 playing on a BROKEN FOOT, was as good and effective as he was in '86 because his FG% was roughly the same.

[ihoopallday]

It goes both ways. LeBron, Kobe, and MJ stans all do it.

[Mr Exlax]

Until a player goes on the floor 1 vs 5 on both ends then they haven't won a title without somebody. Everybody needs a team.

[tpols]

Its the same logic I've used in defense of Scottie Pippen. So yes I agree. Funny thing is. You as a Bulls fan defend Mchale and allow people to bash Pippen.


As far as Mchale/Gasol. Had Mchale been moderately successful then I d agree. But he needed extenuating circumstances to lead a 500 team. Like I stated earlier, the Celtics are a mid to low 30 win team without expansiin in 89. They won 57 games the year prior.
What does what Mchale did as a first option have to do with his ranking as best second option? Doesn't seem to make sense why you would judge him on a criteria outside of what he's being ranked on.

Gasol at his best is probably a worse second option than

11 Wade
80 Jabbar
01 Kobe
86 Mchale
91 Pippen
83 Dr. J
Some form of 05-07 parker/manu

He's better than a lot of second options that won a chip here or there.. Like hakeems teammates even though he beat a Ewing who had similarly no great second option either. He's better than Jason terry. And those piston teams were all well rounded less star based.

As far as the dominant one two punches though.. Gasol is slightly below average in that crowd. Still plenty of help to win it.

[97 bulls]

This isn't about Pippen, and people bash every player that has ever played, and I don't go around defending each and every one of htem.

What do you agree with?

Expansion is extinuating circumstances? He got his teams to the playoffs, which I would say is moderately successful :confusedshrug: Who cares if they won 57 games the previous year? Not every season is the same. Bottom line is 1 season vs. 6 seasons is a huge difference.

If there's 2 bowlers, the first person gets 1 shot, and the second person gets 6 shots, and the first person hits a few pins only, while the second person hits 3 strikes and then 3 others shots where he only hit a few pins, are you completely convinced that the second person is better? Cause if you are, then you must be completely stupid.

And no the 89 Celtics werent moderately successful. If Mchale is that good, he should be expected to lead a team to achieve more than 42 wins in an expansion year with that kind of talent.


Arguments like this are just as dumb as the arguments that Jordan would be nothing without Phil or Pippen, Kobe would be nothing without Gasol or Shaq, etc.
Its not about Pippen. Hes an example. Its about this idiotic mindset that only the best player should get credit for a team success. In other words Pippens six championships dont count as much as Jordans because hes not as good as Jordan even though that Bulls team aint winning without either of them. The same applies to Gasol. I brought up Pippen because you have used that same logic against him. And you're a self-described Bulls fan. Ive seen you say Pippen isnt _________ because he never led a team to a championship.

[97 bulls]

Like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the Celtics in the late 80's to try and sound knowledgeable on the state of their players at the time. I knew Parrish and DJ were in their mid or late 30's but that's about it, other than knowing Bird missed that season.

Secondly, I don't think Gasol is a bad number two. When I said historically weak, it was me making fun of the logic of Kobe fanboys who have tried to downplay how good Gasol was by either saying Kobe won 2 rings without a HOF teammate, or trying to argue how weak of a #2 Gasol was in comparison to the #2 option for the other top 10 all-time greats. I understand the confusion and I shouldn't have worded it that way.

But your argument here is extremely weak. Especially since McHale and the Celtics still made the playoffs and got swept in the first round....which is the exact same and best result Gasol accomplished in Memphis. But what puts it over the top is you're using a one season sample size against a 5-6 season sample size.

And I don't know where you got "I love McHale" from. I made one post in that thread, pointing out how ignorant and ridiculous it was to assume that, in '87 playing on a BROKEN FOOT, was as good and effective as he was in '86 because his FG% was roughly the same.
Then I stand corrected. I didnt know you were more or less being sarcastic.

[97 bulls]

What does what Mchale did as a first option have to do with his ranking as best second option? Doesn't seem to make sense why you would judge him on a criteria outside of what he's being ranked on.

Gasol at his best is probably a worse second option than

11 Wade
80 Jabbar
01 Kobe
86 Mchale
91 Pippen
83 Dr. J
Some form of 05-07 parker/manu

He's better than a lot of second options that won a chip here or there.. Like hakeems teammates even though he beat a Ewing who had similarly no great second option either. He's better than Jason terry. And those piston teams were all well rounded less star based.

As far as the dominant one two punches though.. Gasol is slightly below average in that crowd. Still plenty of help to win it.



What does what Mchale did as a first option have to do with his ranking as best second option? Doesn't seem to make sense why you would judge him on a criteria outside of what he's being ranked on.*
Because KG215 called Gasol a historically bad number two guy. I used Mchale because I feel their careers are just about parallel as far as accomplishments.

I do feel Gasol deserves to be on your list.

[TonyMontana]

You can't hold winning a title against players without help. Its a team award and it takes everything the entire roster has to win it.

However....

What you can ridicule players for is not even being relevant without them.

For example

Kobe Bryant, 3 consecutive years of his prime and he couldn't win a single playoff series without a hall of fame center in their prime.

or Michael Jordan going 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Pippen.

I'm not saying they should have won championships with those teams, but if you can't at least be relevant and win a round, it states just how overrated the player actually is.

LeBron James on the other hand was undefeated in the first round, despite his best teammate being Mo Williams in Cleveland. If you have LeBron on your team, you are going to be a threat. With just Kobe/Jordan you need hall of fame supporting casts to win a series.

Thats why LeBron is so great. Him alone makes any team relevant and a top seed. Even if his supporting cast is scrubs.

[guy]

Its not about Pippen. Hes an example. Its about this idiotic mindset that only the best player should get credit for a team success. In other words Pippens six championships dont count as much as Jordans because hes not as good as Jordan even though that Bulls team aint winning without either of them. The same applies to Gasol. I brought up Pippen because you have used that same logic against him. And you're a self-described Bulls fan. Ive seen you say Pippen isnt _________ because he never led a team to a championship.

What's the blank?

Only an idiot or someone that's trying to be PC or satisfy egos would say Pippen was as important to those titles as Jordan was. Same goes for Bird/McHale and Kobe/Gasol. That doesn't mean they weren't important.

I don't get your argument though. On one hand you're saying players' accomplishments as second bananas shouldn't be diminished but then you say Gasol is better then McHale, while ignoring sample size in the process, solely because he's a more proven leader I.E. best player on a team?

[pauk]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.

http://content.onliner.by/forum/0f3/a2f/33071/800x800/00d663d4c420253c1798b258336ddbe8.gif

[ThaRegul8r]

the mass population here just say whatever fits their agenda.

This is not limited to InsideHoops.

[97 bulls]

What's the blank?

Only an idiot or someone that's trying to be PC or satisfy egos would say Pippen was as important to those titles as Jordan was. Same goes for Bird/McHale and Kobe/Gasol. That doesn't mean they weren't important.

I don't get your argument though. On one hand you're saying players' accomplishments as second bananas shouldn't be diminished but then you say Gasol is better then McHale, while ignoring sample size in the process, solely because he's a more proven leader I.E. best player on a team?
The blank is a plethora of things said against Pippen. He never led a team as the best player/man, he didnt score enough, he wasnt clutch, he didnt take over games, he was mentally weak, he was made by Jordan. Just idiotic, agenda driven, thinking.

Case and point. What makes Bryant a top ten player and Pippen a top 20?


The fact is Pippen Gasol, Worthy, Mchale, Parker, Bryant, Terry, Wade, deserve just as much credit because without them, their team doesnt win.

In response to your secind paragraph. I was responding to KG215s assertion that Gasol was one of the worst number two guys historically. I dont feel that can be said and then heep mountains of praise on Mchale when they both accomplished virtually the same thin in their careers.

[DMAVS41]

The blank is a plethora of things said against Pippen. He never led a team as the best player/man, he didnt score enough, he wasnt clutch, he didnt take over games, he was mentally weak, he was made by Jordan. Just idiotic, agenda driven, thinking.

Case and point. What makes Bryant a top ten player and Pippen a top 20?


The fact is Pippen Gasol, Worthy, Mchale, Parker, Bryant, Terry, Wade, deserve just as much credit because without them, their team doesnt win.

In response to your secind paragraph. I was responding to KG215s assertion that Gasol was one of the worst number two guys historically. I dont feel that can be said and then heep mountains of praise on Mchale when they both accomplished virtually the same thin in their careers.


Do you really believe the bold? Please explain.

[97 bulls]

Do you really believe the bold? Please explain.
How many championships does Dirk win without Terry. Not replaced mind you. Just without.

[DMAVS41]

How many championships does Dirk win without Terry. Not replaced mind you. Just without.

That is a non point. The 11 Mavs don't win without Barea. Not replaced mind you. Just without.

So does Barea deserve as much credit as Dirk? Please answer.

[97 bulls]

That is a non point. The 11 Mavs don't win without Barea. Not replaced mind you. Just without.

So does Barea deserve as much credit as Dirk? Please answer.
I think Barea contributions could be replaced. Not Terry.

[DMAVS41]

I think Barea contributions could be replaced. Not Terry.

So then the level of credit should be about how hard it is to replace the contributions of said player.

Would you not agree that it would be harder to replace what Dirk gave the Mavs than what Terry did?

I'm so confused.

[97 bulls]

So then the level of credit should be about how hard it is to replace the contributions of said player.

Would you not agree that it would be harder to replace what Dirk gave the Mavs than what Terry did?

I'm so confused.
That Mavs team was built around Dirks strengths and weaknesses. Thats why I say dont replace them. Just remove them.

[DMAVS41]

That Mavs team was built around Dirks strengths and weaknesses. Thats why I say dont replace them. Just remove them.

You aren't making sense. You just said Barea could be replaced...

So your point is absurd. If you just removed Barea...the Mavs definitely don't win. Which was what you just said about Terry. So I asked if Barea deserved as much credit...and you said no because he could be replaced.

Again. Makes absolutely no sense.

Oh...and Terry's 18/2/3 could absolutely be replaced. Not even a question.

[jstern]

Is easily the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It's amazing to me how many people use this argument. Yes Kobe didn't win a title with Smush Parker, Luke Walton and Kwame Brown in the starting lineup with him. Im sure so many other players would have piled up the titles with that supporting group...No Kobe has not won a title without Shaq or Gasol. Now the other greats

Magic- no titles without Kareem and Worthy
Lebron- no titles without Wade
Bird- no titles without McHale
Jordan- no titles without Pippen

And on and on it goes. Why do people insist on using this absurdly retarded argument when it comes to Kobe? It's a joke

I do hate that argument. But there's one exception, Lebron, Jordan, and Bird won all of those titles as the man. That's more of a legit argument. 60% of Kobe's titles, somebody else was the man.

But I agree with you, because the argument is more for side kicks and not players who were the man like the ones you listed. Like if somebody kept saying that Pippen was better than Durant because of his 6 rings, then you can definitely that he never won it without Jordan because Jordan was much better than Pippen.

[97 bulls]

You aren't making sense. You just said Barea could be replaced...

So your point is absurd. If you just removed Barea...the Mavs definitely don't win. Which was what you just said about Terry. So I asked if Barea deserved as much credit...and you said no because he could be replaced.

Again. Makes absolutely no sense.

Oh...and Terry's 18/2/3 could absolutely be replaced. Not even a question.
Bareas contributions could be absorbed (that better) by the team. Terrys couldn't. And its not just about scoring. The Heat had to respect Terry based on his reputation. That opens things up for others. He drew the Heats best defender in James. Doesnt that take pressure off other Mavs players?

[97 bulls]

I do hate that argument. But there's one exception, Lebron, Jordan, and Bird won all of those titles as the man. That's more of a legit argument. 60% of Kobe's titles, somebody else was the man.

But I agree with you, because the argument is more for side kicks and not players who were the man like the ones you listed. Like if somebody kept saying that Pippen was better than Durant because of his 6 rings, then you can definitely that he never won it without Jordan because Jordan was much better than Pippen.
But how do you respond to the reply that Jordan never won without Pippen? And in the words of Guy, had more of a sample size.

[DMAVS41]

Bareas contributions could be absorbed (that better) by the team. Terrys couldn't. And its not just about scoring. The Heat had to respect Terry based on his reputation. That opens things up for others. He drew the Heats best defender in James. Doesnt that take pressure off other Mavs players?

But you just got done using the criteria of;

"Do they win without Terry"

I totally agree that the Mavs would have had an easier time replacing Barea than Terry, but no way in hell do the Mavs win the title just removing Barea.

So your point holds no water at all. All you are doing in the Terry and Barea comparison is actually using logic and rational thought. And you should then use that in the Dirk and Terry comparison.

That way you'll come to the proper conclusion that alludes you so often. Which is the following;

Dirk clearly deserves more credit than Terry for the 11 title
Terry clearly deserves more credit than Barea for the 11 title

[97 bulls]

But you just got done using the criteria of;

"Do they win without Terry"

I totally agree that the Mavs would have had an easier time replacing Barea than Terry, but no way in hell do the Mavs win the title just removing Barea.

So your point holds no water at all. All you are doing in the Terry and Barea comparison is actually using logic and rational thought. And you should then use that in the Dirk and Terry comparison.

That way you'll come to the proper conclusion that alludes you so often. Which is the following;

Dirk clearly deserves more credit than Terry for the 11 title
Terry clearly deserves more credit than Barea for the 11 title
Who replaces Terry? On that Mavs team mind you.

[Straight_Ballin]

Wow....so after years and years of arguing there are two point of views in these threads.

1. Kobe sucks...he got carried by Pau, Lamar, Artest, Shaq, and Fisher to titles. Shaq carried Kobe in the first three titles Kobe had nothing to do with those. He is overrated and is not even in the top 20 of greatest players ever.


2. Kobe is the greatest ever...Gasol never got passed the first round before and is soft. Shaq never won a title before Kobe and only one after. Kobe is better then Jordan.




Both sides.....STFU already.

Fact #1

Kobe was one of the best when he won his rings, however he has never won a chip without another elite player like Gasol or Shaq. This is a factual statement. There is no point in making comments like "well Jordan never won without Pippen so Kobe is just as good."

Fact #2

The detroit pistons won without a single superstar. They had allstars yes, but anyone who says "who hasn't won it with at least 2 superstars" is a moron.

Fact #3

Anyone who has seen both Kobe and Jordan actually play during their championship runs will clearly tell you that Jordan is the better player. Show me one person that watched both their runs at the time they did them that says Kobe is better who isn't a biased stan.

[Lakers2877]

How is Gasol a historically weak second option? He gives you 20 pts a night. Id take him to lead my team over Kevin Mchale. And you love him.
That's absurd dude. I love Gasol but put him in the 80's and he's. a good but not great big man. Mchale was great

[tpols]

Fact #1

Kobe was one of the best when he won his rings, however he has never won a chip without another elite player like Gasol or Shaq. This is a factual statement. There is no point in making comments like "well Jordan never won without Pippen so Kobe is just as good."

Fact #2

The detroit pistons won without a single superstar. They had allstars yes, but anyone who says "who hasn't won it with at least 2 superstars" is a moron.

Fact #3

Anyone who has seen both Kobe and Jordan actually play during their championship runs will clearly tell you that Jordan is the better player. Show me one person that watched both their runs at the time they did them that says Kobe is better who isn't a biased stan.
You just contradicted yourself completely.. MJ has never won a chip without an elite player either.

His name is Scottie pippen and he was just as good if not better than Pau Gasol.

Similar offensive impact both 20ppg caliber scorers.. Both elite passers and rebounder for their positions.. Scottie was better on defense and a more capable leader.

Your point makes no sense.

[Lakers2877]

Why wouldnt you? Kevin Mchale FAILED at leading a team. Had it not been for expansion, the Celtics probably win 30 games in 1989.

Why would you take Mchale over Gasol?
When did gasol lead a team to anything but a first round sweep?

[97 bulls]

That's absurd dude. I love Gasol but put him in the 80's and he's. a good but not great big man. Mchale was great
If hes so great (Mchale), then why couldn't he lead the Celtics to a better than 500 record in 89? With all that talent mind you.

[97 bulls]

When did gasol lead a team to anything but a first round sweep?
When did Gasol have a player the caliber if Robert Parish and Reggie Lewis?

[DMAVS41]

Who replaces Terry? On that Mavs team mind you.

What? What is the point of this?

Nobody could have. The Mavs would have lost without Terry.

But you could have said the same thing about Barea. That is my entire point.

Nobody else on the Mavs roster was capable of doing what Barea did. Mavs lose either way.

So again your point holds no water. You are getting into finally learning that certain players are more important than others.

[DMAVS41]

You just contradicted yourself completely.. MJ has never won a chip without an elite player either.

His name is Scottie pippen and he was just as good if not better than Pau Gasol.

Similar offensive impact both 20ppg caliber scorers.. Both elite passers and rebounder for their positions.. Scottie was better on defense and a more capable leader.

Your point makes no sense.

This. It's a non point.

Dirk won a title without an elite player...and he's nowhere near as good as Shaq for example...yet Shaq never won anything without two of the best perimeter players of all time.

[Lakers2877]

You can't hold winning a title against players without help. Its a team award and it takes everything the entire roster has to win it.

However....

What you can ridicule players for is not even being relevant without them.

For example

Kobe Bryant, 3 consecutive years of his prime and he couldn't win a single playoff series without a hall of fame center in their prime.

or Michael Jordan going 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Pippen.

I'm not saying they should have won championships with those teams, but if you can't at least be relevant and win a round, it states just how overrated the player actually is.

LeBron James on the other hand was undefeated in the first round, despite his best teammate being Mo Williams in Cleveland. If you have LeBron on your team, you are going to be a threat. With just Kobe/Jordan you need hall of fame supporting casts to win a series.

Thats why LeBron is so great. Him alone makes any team relevant and a top seed. Even if his supporting cast is scrubs.
Compare the east that Lebron played in, in the playoffs to what Kobe played against in the west. It's not even close. And the year Kobe missed the playoffs Rudy t quit mid season and Kobe and Lamar both missed around 25% of the season. I'm sure you would agree that playing a 58 win suns team with the league MVP in rd one would be a bit tougher than playing the 41-41 wizards

[jstern]

But how do you respond to the reply that Jordan never won without Pippen? And in the words of Guy, had more of a sample size.
I don't respond to that, because just because Pippen was there doesn't mean that Jordan was not capable of winning a championship without Pippen. He was better than Pippen, he won 6 Finals MVP, so he wasn't gifted anything because he out performed everyone.

What was Jordan supposed to do? Considering that Pippen was there almost his whole career. The argument is like saying, "Jordan didn't win without being a Chicago Bull."

I would understand the argument more if Jordan got to play with Pippen only every other year with the other year playing with another star, and only winning during the Pippen years.

[Straight_Ballin]

You just contradicted yourself completely.. MJ has never won a chip without an elite player either.

His name is Scottie pippen and he was just as good if not better than Pau Gasol.

Similar offensive impact both 20ppg caliber scorers.. Both elite passers and rebounder for their positions.. Scottie was better on defense and a more capable leader.

Your point makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Everyone knows that Jordan played with an elite player. Are you a proponent of the "since they both played with elite players, Jordan isn't any better" arguement? If so, allow yourself to be silenced:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308032

[Lakers2877]

If hes so great (Mchale), then why couldn't he lead the Celtics to a better than 500 record in 89? With all that talent mind you.
That's really poor logic. It's one season with an aging and injury riddled roster in a much tougher era. I'm not gonna argue with you about it. I'm not a Kobe fan. I'm a laker fan. I love gasol and when they retire his jersey inside staples I will be there. Gasol was the missing piece. But it's just. My opinion, from watching both play, that mchale was the better player. This hasn't exactly been a strong era for bigs either

[Lakers2877]

When did Gasol have a player the caliber if Robert Parish and Reggie Lewis?
When did gasol have to play in the tougher era?

We can do this all day. You're not gonna change my mind.

[97 bulls]

What? What is the point of this?

Nobody could have. The Mavs would have lost without Terry.

But you could have said the same thing about Barea. That is my entire point.

Nobody else on the Mavs roster was capable of doing what Barea did. Mavs lose either way.

So again your point holds no water. You are getting into finally learning that certain players are more important than others.
I disagree. Its easy to replace a guy giving you 9 pts on 42%. And weak as defender. And isnt really a part of the opposition defensive game plan.

Terry isnt much of a defender, but hes highly respected as a scorer. And that shows by Spoelstra putting James on him.

[DMAVS41]

I disagree. Its easy to replace a guy giving you 9 pts on 42%. And weak as defender. And isnt really a part of the opposition defensive game plan.

Terry isnt much of a defender, but hes highly respected as a scorer. And that shows by Spoelstra putting James on him.

I already said Terry is harder to replace. Please stop and think.

Answer me this.

Do the Mavs win the title if you just remove Barea from the team?

[97 bulls]

I don't respond to that, because just because Pippen was there doesn't mean that Jordan was not capable of winning a championship without Pippen. He was better than Pippen, he won 6 Finals MVP, so he wasn't gifted anything because he out performed everyone.

What was Jordan supposed to do? Considering that Pippen was there almost his whole career. The argument is like saying, "Jordan didn't win without being a Chicago Bull."

I would understand the argument more if Jordan got to play with Pippen only every other year with the other year playing with another star, and only winning during the Pippen years.
Pippen spent his prime playing alongside Jordan. I mean, what was Pippen supposed to do?

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

It's just a cop out... an easy way out... an easy, dismissive argument... really it's something to make the aggressor feel good about himself online.


Honestly, there is a ton of Golden Age thinking going on... in which everyone reveres the previous generations... kind of like those cultist/elitist baseball writers

[jstern]

Pippen spent his prime playing alongside Jordan. I mean, what was Pippen supposed to do?

He's supposed to do nothing, the point is that somebody trying to put Jordan, Lebron, Bird, etc down for playing with a player that wasn't quite as good as them is silly.

[Fresh Kid]

It's just a cop out... an easy way out... an easy, dismissive argument... really it's something to make the aggressor feel good about himself online.


Honestly, there is a ton of Golden Age thinking going on... in which everyone reveres the previous generations... kind of like those cultist/elitist baseball writers
Lebron is a true cop out tho

[97 bulls]

I already said Terry is harder to replace. Please stop and think.

Answer me this.

Do the Mavs win the title if you just remove Barea from the team?
Yes.

[DMAVS41]

Yes.

Wow. You really must not have watched the 11 playoffs. But then Barea is a bad example.

Lets try this with Marion.

Do the Mavs win without Marion?

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

Lebron is a true cop out tho

I think he'll take 2+ titles and the common folk (including myself, so don't get worked up now) calling him a cop out

vs

GOAT to never win a title

[tpols]

It makes perfect sense. Everyone knows that Jordan played with an elite player. Are you a proponent of the "since they both played with elite players, Jordan isn't any better" arguement? If so, allow yourself to be silenced:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308032
I believe theirs two ways to judge a players impact and weight their achievements. One is looking at help + competition and the other is looking at their sole individual impact.

Jordans help and competition are similar to Kobe's... He had Scottie pippen a 20+/8/6 mini Lebron type player plus a host of other all star teammates and HOF GOAT coach. Better running mate than anyone Ewing ever had.. Better than what Hakeem had.. Better than what Barkley had outside of one or two years before he got fat.. Better than what David Robinson had.. Jordan had the best supporting cast and second banana out of any superstar in the 90s.

Kobe, as the first option, when he got a 20/10 Gasol was able to make three finals and win two chips with their biggest test always being the Celtics, who were just as stacked and talented as they were.

Individually MJ was better at stomping you out and closing quicker.. He also was more productive which is why he won in more dominating fashion.

But given similar circumstances, ie giving Kobe a Gasol, or pippen level player throughout his whole prime like MJ had, and we're looking at a similar win rate. Kobe went to three straight Finals and won two chips when he was slightly past his prime. If he had Gasol since 05 or 06 LA isn't winning even more? League was even weaker back then. Mid 2000 wasn't as competitive as late and given Gasol that early would've almost certainly made Lakers title favorites every year.

So what's the difference? MJ can close you out better and is slightly more productive. It's sort of overkill though once you give either of them the best second option in the league. They were already better than their fellow first options.. Now they have the better teams as well

[guy]

The blank is a plethora of things said against Pippen. He never led a team as the best player/man, he didnt score enough, he wasnt clutch, he didnt take over games, he was mentally weak, he was made by Jordan. Just idiotic, agenda driven, thinking.

Well, seems like your emotions have greatly exaggerated my position on Pippen. I'm not sure if I've ever said all of that, especially in the context that you present it as. Whatever, not going to argue cause its not really the current discussion.



Case and point. What makes Bryant a top ten player and Pippen a top 20?

So we're arguing Kobe vs. Pippen now? :oldlol:



The fact is Pippen Gasol, Worthy, Mchale, Parker, Bryant, Terry, Wade, deserve just as much credit because without them, their team doesnt win.

We've been through this a million times. You can use this logic for role players like Paxson, Grant, Fisher, Horry, Barea, Chalmers. Without them, there teams may not have won. This is a simpletons' argument. You're either too stupid to grasp how certain players are more important then others on a team and/or you live in this cliche happy-go-lucky world where everyone in a team sport deserves the same credit. You probably think everyone in life deserves a participation trophy, don't you?



In response to your secind paragraph. I was responding to KG215s assertion that Gasol was one of the worst number two guys historically. I dont feel that can be said and then heep mountains of praise on Mchale when they both accomplished virtually the same thin in their careers.

Fair point. But your exact quote that I responded to was "I don't see where an argument needs to be made. Gasol faired much better leading a team when compared to Mchale when he got his shot. ", the argument being taking either McHale or Gasol to lead a team. All I said was thats ridiculously stupid logic given the fact that Gasol had 5-6 seasons while McHale had 1 season.



I think Barea contributions could be replaced. Not Terry

Good lord :oldlol: So Wade, Kobe, Rose, Westbrook, CP3, Deron, Parker, Ginobili, Allen, Rondo, Conley, JJ, Crawford, and plenty of other players couldn't have replaced Jason ****in Terry? :oldlol:

[Fresh Kid]

I think he'll take 2+ titles and the common folk (including myself, so don't get worked up now) calling him a cop out

vs

GOAT to never win a title
and who is that?

[DMAVS41]

I believe theirs two ways to judge a players impact and weight their achievements. One is looking at help + competition and the other is looking at their sole individual impact.

Jordans help and competition are similar to Kobe's... He had Scottie pippen a 20+/8/6 mini Lebron type player plus a host of other all star teammates and HOF GOAT coach. Better running mate than anyone Ewing ever had.. Better than what Hakeem had.. Better than what Barkley had outside of one or two years before he got fat.. Better than what David Robinson had.. Jordan had the best supporting cast and second banana out of any superstar in the 90s.

Kobe, as the first option, when he got a 20/10 Gasol was able to make three finals and win two chips with their biggest test always being the Celtics, who were just as stacked and talented as they were.

Individually MJ was better at stomping you out and closing quicker.. He also was more productive which is why he won in more dominating fashion.

But given similar circumstances, ie giving Kobe a Gasol, or pippen level player throughout his whole prime like MJ had, and we're looking at a similar win rate. Kobe went to three straight Finals and won two chips when he was slightly past his prime. If he had Gasol since 05 or 06 LA isn't winning even more? League was even weaker back then. Mid 2000 wasn't as competitive as late and given Gasol that early would've almost certainly made Lakers title favorites every year.

So what's the difference? MJ can close you out better and is slightly more productive. It's sort of overkill though once you give either of them the best second option in the league. They were already better than their fellow first options.. Now they have the better teams as well

I agree with a lot of this, although I don't think Kobe wins more than 3 titles in place of Jordan.

But lets set aside that for a second and just agree that you get the same results.

That is the problem with heavily using rings to rank players. Jordan was clearly and without a doubt a much better player than Kobe on both ends. Yes, much better. Shows up in the stats, the eye test...results...everything.

Generally the basketball community has properly ranked players.

[97 bulls]

Originally posted by Guy
We've been through this a million times. You can use this logic for role players like Paxson, Grant, Fisher, Horry, Barea, Chalmers. Without them, there teams may not have won. This is a simpletons' argument. You're either too stupid to grasp how certain players are more important then others on a team and/or you live in this cliche happy-go-lucky world where everyone in a team sport deserves the same credit. You probably think everyone in life deserves a participation trophy, don't you?


Youre obviously not an athlete. Or participate in organized sports. Lets think back to the 11 ECF. You know why the Heat could key in on Rose on his dribble penetration and trap him on picks? Because Korver Bogans, and Deng didnt do their job. Make them pay for playing that sort of defense. Now compare that to what happened when teams tried to pack it in on Jordan. Kerr and Paxson, routinely hit their open shots. There's a reason why Jordan wnet batshit crazy on that bus after the 90 loss to the Pistons. Or Kobe went on national radio demading a trade. And refuse to go to the Bulls if Deng was involved in the trade. Or why Lebron James bolted for Miami. They NEEDED SUPPORT. Why you continue to not see this is beyond me.




So we're arguing Kobe vs. Pippen now?**


Its not an argument. Im proving your double standard. Apply the same logic in that comparison. Im sure Pippen couldve won an MVP and a championship "as the man" with as much of an opportunity as Bryant.

[97 bulls]

Wow. You really must not have watched the 11 playoffs. But then Barea is a bad example.

Lets try this with Marion.

Do the Mavs win without Marion?
No. The Job he did on James defensively was tremendous.

Its no difference with the Bulls. Perhaps the Bulls get past the Sonics in 96 witbout Rodman, but I highly doubt it. Both Jordan and Pippen shot incredibly bad. Who knows where theyd be without Rodman

[TheCorporation]

sorry but while you were making threads jumping off the lebron bandwagon, wade was winning game 4 on his own in san antonio :roll:

He did well in a couple games, out of the 16 playoff wins they needed? AWESOME!

[guy]

Youre obviously not an athlete. Or participate in organized sports. Lets think back to the 11 ECF. You know why the Heat could key in on Rose on his dribble penetration and trap him on picks? Because Korver Bogans, and Deng didnt do their job. Make them pay for playing that sort of defense. Now compare that to what happened when teams tried to pack it in on Jordan. Kerr and Paxson, routinely hit their open shots. There's a reason why Jordan wnet batshit crazy on that bus after the 90 loss to the Pistons. Or Kobe went on national radio demading a trade. And refuse to go to the Bulls if Deng was involved in the trade. Or why Lebron James bolted for Miami. They NEEDED SUPPORT. Why you continue to not see this is beyond me.


Do you even know what you're arguing? No one said anything about them not needing support. But that doesn't mean their support is as important as them. It's very hard to take you seriously if you think dumb shit like Kerr or Paxson were as important as Jordan.



Its not an argument. Im proving your double standard. Apply the same logic in that comparison. Im sure Pippen couldve won an MVP and a championship "as the man" with as much of an opportunity as Bryant.

You're sure of that? Okay nevermind, I guess I was wrong then.

[97 bulls]

Do you even know what you're arguing? No one said anything about them not needing support. But that doesn't mean their support is as important as them. It's very hard to take you seriously if you think dumb shit like Kerr or Paxson were as important as Jordan.



You're sure of that? Okay nevermind, I guess I was wrong then.
Its not so much a matter of importance. I feel a player should get full credit if their role isn't easily absorbed on the team. Chemistry is the most important aspect of a successful team.

The bottom line is you can belittle or minimize different roles on a team, but my point has been proven time and again.

[Lakers2877]

It's just a cop out... an easy way out... an easy, dismissive argument... really it's something to make the aggressor feel good about himself online.


Honestly, there is a ton of Golden Age thinking going on... in which everyone reveres the previous generations... kind of like those cultist/elitist baseball writers
You know what's funny. I've been an nba fan for 35 years and before Kobe I never once, in all my life heard anybody use the terms " carried " " lead dog " " couldn't win without " when discussing great nba players. Not a single time. I don't know if it started with Internet message boards or what but I never looked at the lakers and thought to myself " magic carried worthy " or anything like that

[Lakers2877]

I believe theirs two ways to judge a players impact and weight their achievements. One is looking at help + competition and the other is looking at their sole individual impact.

Jordans help and competition are similar to Kobe's... He had Scottie pippen a 20+/8/6 mini Lebron type player plus a host of other all star teammates and HOF GOAT coach. Better running mate than anyone Ewing ever had.. Better than what Hakeem had.. Better than what Barkley had outside of one or two years before he got fat.. Better than what David Robinson had.. Jordan had the best supporting cast and second banana out of any superstar in the 90s.

Kobe, as the first option, when he got a 20/10 Gasol was able to make three finals and win two chips with their biggest test always being the Celtics, who were just as stacked and talented as they were.

Individually MJ was better at stomping you out and closing quicker.. He also was more productive which is why he won in more dominating fashion.

But given similar circumstances, ie giving Kobe a Gasol, or pippen level player throughout his whole prime like MJ had, and we're looking at a similar win rate. Kobe went to three straight Finals and won two chips when he was slightly past his prime. If he had Gasol since 05 or 06 LA isn't winning even more? League was even weaker back then. Mid 2000 wasn't as competitive as late and given Gasol that early would've almost certainly made Lakers title favorites every year.

So what's the difference? MJ can close you out better and is slightly more productive. It's sort of overkill though once you give either of them the best second option in the league. They were already better than their fellow first options.. Now they have the better teams as well

That's actually a well thought out, excellent explanation. Props dude

[Lakers2877]

I agree with a lot of this, although I don't think Kobe wins more than 3 titles in place of Jordan.

But lets set aside that for a second and just agree that you get the same results.

That is the problem with heavily using rings to rank players. Jordan was clearly and without a doubt a much better player than Kobe on both ends. Yes, much better. Shows up in the stats, the eye test...results...everything.

Generally the basketball community has properly ranked players.
I have Jordan as the GOAT and nobody can match his first 3 title runs but Kobe during the 08-10 playoffs as far as numbers compares very favorably to 96-98 Jordan, even bettering him in some respects. Now mike got 3 and Kobe got only got 2 but that 08 laker team had guys like Sasha V and Vlad Radmonovich getting heavy minutes. Note- I'm not saying Kobe is better than Jordan because he's not. I'm simply saying that his 30-6-6 46% in the playoffs looks just as good as Jordan's 29-6-5 if I remember that's what they were when I looked at them

[The Iron Fist]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.
Magic wasn't prime in 89 or 90?:biggums:

[DMAVS41]

No. The Job he did on James defensively was tremendous.

Its no difference with the Bulls. Perhaps the Bulls get past the Sonics in 96 witbout Rodman, but I highly doubt it. Both Jordan and Pippen shot incredibly bad. Who knows where theyd be without Rodman

So then by your criteria...Marion deserves just as much credit as Dirk.

Right?

[97 bulls]

You know what's funny. I've been an nba fan for 35 years and before Kobe I never once, in all my life heard anybody use the terms " carried " " lead dog " " couldn't win without " when discussing great nba players. Not a single time. I don't know if it started with Internet message boards or what but I never looked at the lakers and thought to myself " magic carried worthy " or anything like that
Great post. Id like to add. Now, fans of teams go out of their way to diminish the contributions of all but one player on their favorite team. In aan effort to make it seem as if one player wins one their own. Its disturbing.

[97 bulls]

So then by your criteria...Marion deserves just as much credit as Dirk.

Right?
Yes. The same way Rodmans contributions hold just as much weight as Jordan and Pippen. With Rodman. 96 Bulls without? 95 Bulls

Do you think Dirk would've been able to defend LeBron James?

[Mr Exlax]

You know what's funny. I've been an nba fan for 35 years and before Kobe I never once, in all my life heard anybody use the terms " carried " " lead dog " " couldn't win without " when discussing great nba players. Not a single time. I don't know if it started with Internet message boards or what but I never looked at the lakers and thought to myself " magic carried worthy " or anything like that


You, my man are in the same boat as me. It's called being old. I agree with you 10000000% though.

[juju151111]

Yes. The same way Rodmans contributions hold just as much weight as Jordan and Pippen. With Rodman. 96 Bulls without? 95 Bulls

Do you think Dirk would've been able to defend LeBron James?
If everyone deserves the same credit why are they superstars and MVPs etc.... Why wasn't Marion labeled a superstar. Why didn't Cuban say he was building a team around Dirk and Marion instead of. Just Dirk. Why did Dirk have a better season and playoffs then Marion?

[97 bulls]

If everyone deserves the same credit why are they superstars and MVPs etc.... Why wasn't Marion labeled a superstar. Why didn't Cuban say he was building a team around Dirk and Marion instead of. Just Dirk. Why did Dirk have a better season and playoffs then Marion?
Just keep it simple. The Mavs dont win without Marions defense on James. Marion desrves full credit. Doesnt mean hes as good as Nowitzki. But was needed.

[DMAVS41]

Yes. The same way Rodmans contributions hold just as much weight as Jordan and Pippen. With Rodman. 96 Bulls without? 95 Bulls

Do you think Dirk would've been able to defend LeBron James?

So now the amount of credit a player gets is based on if they can guard a player that doesn't even play their same position?

I hope you don't really believe the non-sense you spew.

You started to use some logic and rational thought with the Barea example. I encourage you to continue to trying to think that way with other things as well.

That way you will reach proper conclusions.

Dirk clearly was the most valuable and hardest to replace Maverick...and he deserves the most credit for the title. It's the logical conclusion supported by everything.

But again...you really need to examine your logic when you continue to reach such absurd conclusions.

To name two now;

Dirk and Terry and Marion deserve the exact same amount of credit for the 11 title

Pippen was equal to or better than Magic

Again...I hope you actually don't believe this shit.

[tpols]

Just keep it simple. The Mavs dont win without Marions defense on James. Marion desrves full credit. Doesnt mean hes as good as Nowitzki. But was needed.
I kind of see what youre getting at if youre looking just at the Finals.. since the biggest reason the Mavs won was because of how they played Lebron.

But then I guess you would think Diaw/Leanord/Green were just as if not more important than Duncan/Parker in this years Finals since their defense on Lebron was one of the biggest reasons the Spurs were able to hang around as well as they did. The mindfvck on Lebron wouldve been the story of the series had Spurs won.

[97 bulls]

So now the amount of credit a player gets is based on if they can guard a player that doesn't even play their same position?

I hope you don't really believe the non-sense you spew.

You started to use some logic and rational thought with the Barea example. I encourage you to continue to trying to think that way with other things as well.

That way you will reach proper conclusions.

Dirk clearly was the most valuable and hardest to replace Maverick...and he deserves the most credit for the title. It's the logical conclusion supported by everything.

But again...you really need to examine your logic when you continue to reach such absurd conclusions.

To name two now;

Dirk and Terry and Marion deserve the exact same amount of credit for the 11 title

Pippen was equal to or better than Magic

Again...I hope you actually don't believe this shit.
Hey, I back up my stance with facts. Ive given you plenty examples.

Let me ask you this. Does Nowitzki get a better ring than the other players?

[97 bulls]

I kind of see what youre getting at if youre looking just at the Finals.. since the biggest reason the Mavs won was because of how they played Lebron.

But then I guess you would think Diaw/Leanord/Green were just as if not more important than Duncan/Parker in this years Finals since their defense on Lebron was one of the biggest reasons the Spurs were able to hang around as well as they did. The mindfvck on Lebron wouldve been the story of the series had Spurs won.
I just see it as a team. Not individuals. Each player dependent on the others to do their job. I just dont see why certain players should be looked down upon for not being the man. Especially players whos worth is high enough to feel that if they werent on the team, that team doesnt win.

What is more. Blame them for losses. How many times have we seen DMavs say Nowitzki wouldve won more with different players. Or the only reason the Mavs lost was because noone but Nowitzki showed up. Well in 2011, everyone showed up. Now they get minimal credit?

How is that even remotely logical? Team wins...... Best player get all the credit. Team loses, the team takes the blame.

[97 bulls]

You know what's funny. I've been an nba fan for 35 years and before Kobe I never once, in all my life heard anybody use the terms " carried " " lead dog " " couldn't win without " when discussing great nba players. Not a single time. I don't know if it started with Internet message boards or what but I never looked at the lakers and thought to myself " magic carried worthy " or anything like that
I just feel this post needs yo be bumped again. Its so true. James Worthy was never the best player on any of those Lakers championship teams. But I never heard fans say he shouldn't get full recognition for his role. Lakers fans never knocked Kareem for being aarguably the third or fourth best player on half of the Lakers championships. He got full credit.

[juju151111]

Just keep it simple. The Mavs dont win without Marions defense on James. Marion desrves full credit. Doesnt mean hes as good as Nowitzki. But was needed.
How do they get the same credit if they don't do equal amount of things. You make no Damn sense and LJ was shook more then any defense Marion played on him.

[juju151111]

I kind of see what youre getting at if youre looking just at the Finals.. since the biggest reason the Mavs won was because of how they played Lebron.

But then I guess you would think Diaw/Leanord/Green were just as if not more important than Duncan/Parker in this years Finals since their defense on Lebron was one of the biggest reasons the Spurs were able to hang around as well as they did. The mindfvck on Lebron wouldve been the story of the series had Spurs won.
What defense?:wtf: They left him wide open. They were so amazing. Gtfo

[juju151111]

Hey, I back up my stance with facts. Ive given you plenty examples.

Let me ask you this. Does Nowitzki get a better ring than the other players?
Who the best player on the Mavs? Who is the harder to replace? Stop your nonesense.

[CJ Mustard]

If hes so great (Mchale), then why couldn't he lead the Celtics to a better than 500 record in 89? With all that talent mind you.
:facepalm Uh...because he was past his prime maybe?

[97 bulls]

How do they get the same credit if they don't do equal amount of things. You make no Damn sense and LJ was shook more then any defense Marion played on him.
I see Marion avg 25/9 on 47% shooting (or whatever it was Dirk avgd) as being a hell of alot higher than Nowitzki being able to hold Lebron James to 18 PPG.

[97 bulls]

Who the best player on the Mavs? Who is the harder to replace? Stop your nonesense.
Dirk was the best player on that Mavs team. I stated such earlier.

Your second questiin isnt answered so easily. All players eventually must be replaced.

[juju151111]

I see Marion avg 25/9 on 47% shooting (or whatever it was Dirk avgd) as being a hell of alot higher than Nowitzki being able to hold Lebron James to 18 PPG.
Ok simple question. Would you trade Dirk for terry if they were on different teams.

[juju151111]

Dirk was the best player on that Mavs team. I stated such earlier.

Your second questiin isnt answered so easily. All players eventually must be replaced.
Know you just trying skate your way around the question. Just answer it. Can you replace lets say 2011 Jason Terry just has easily has 2011 Dirk. They are equal so they should be able to replace them the same way.

[97 bulls]

Ok simple question. Would you trade Dirk for terry if they were on different teams.
Again, not answered so easily. What if I didnt need Nowitzki? What if I had a stud PF but no offense from the perimeter?

[97 bulls]

Know you just trying skate your way around the question. Just answer it. Can you replace lets say 2011 Jason Terry just has easily has 2011 Dirk. They are equal so they should be able to replace them the same way.
Its a different question. Because your changing the teams roster. All players are and can be replaced.

[juju151111]

Again, not answered so easily. What if I didnt need Nowitzki? What if I had a stud PF but no offense from the perimeter?
Smh Stop twisting Shit. This isnt if you need Dirk are not. Would you trade them. Your insane lol

[juju151111]

Its a different question. Because your changing the teams roster. All players are and can be replaced.
I never said they couldn't be replaced. I said has easily replaced. Lets say Mj got traded for mad max or whoever on Houston in 1989. Then Houston wins 5 titles in a row. It shows mad max was never a equal contributor then. Mj cause Mj is wayyyyy better. Terry was a role player. He can easily be replaced. He didn't have the same impact has Dirk. Lol you ate literally crazy. First Pippen is has good has Bird and Magic know this.

[97 bulls]

Smh Stop twisting Shit. This isnt if you need Dirk are not. Would you trade them. Your insane lol
This isnt twisting. Teams make trades based on need. Or better yet choose based on need. Exmaples. Why did Portland take Bowie over Jordan? Everyone believed Jordan was better. Because they had Drexler. Why didnt they draft Durant. They had Roy.

[97 bulls]

I never said they couldn't be replaced. I said has easily replaced. Lets say Mj got traded for mad max or whoever on Houston in 1989. Then Houston wins 5 titles in a row. It shows mad max was never a equal contributor then. Mj cause Mj is wayyyyy better. Terry was a role player. He can easily be replaced. He didn't have the same impact has Dirk. Lol you ate literally crazy. First Pippen is has good has Bird and Magic know this.
Ok. Let me ask you. If the Bulls had Latrell Sprewell instead of Pete Myers in 94, to replace Jordan, do they win a championship?

[Mr Exlax]

I don't know what you two are arguing about exactly, but here goes nothing........shut the fukc up.

[juju151111]

This isnt twisting. Teams make trades based on need. Or better yet choose based on need. Exmaples. Why did Portland take Bowie over Jordan? Everyone believed Jordan was better. Because they had Drexler. Why didnt they draft Durant. They had Roy.
But we are not talking about need. We are talking about valuable/impact. Ok lets do it this way Would you swap a superstar at the same position for terry.

[juju151111]

Ok. Let me ask you. If the Bulls had Latrell Sprewell instead of Pete Myers in 94, to replace Jordan, do they win a championship?
Who knows probably have a good chance in 94. It could go either way, but nope adding sprewell doesn't guarantee them. Mj and Hakeem is more of a guaranteeto win championship. You want to know why? Hakeem has more impact/valuable then Pippen.:applause:

[97 bulls]

But we are not talking about need. We are talking about valuable/impact. Ok lets do it this way Would you swap a superstar at the same position for terry.
Off course. But as I already qualified. His role is still needed cuz you replaced him. My point is remove him and not replace him. Or Marion. Or Chandlern Do they still win? Do they still win?

[97 bulls]

Who knows probably have a good chance in 94. It could go either way, but nope adding sprewell doesn't guarantee them. Mj and Hakeem is more of a guaranteeto win championship. You want to know why? Hakeem has more impact/valuable then Pippen.:applause:
Lol. Well what does it say for Pippen if you feel the only caliber player capable of replacing him is Olajuwan?:eek: :eek:

My point about the Jordan/Spreewell comparison is All players are replaceable. Even the GOAT.

[juju151111]

Off course. But as I already qualified. His role is still needed cuz you replaced him. My point is remove him and not replace him. Or Marion. Or Chandlern Do they still win? Do they still win?
:biggums: off course you need a replacement. Lol this has nothing to do with Any of that. You said Jason Terry is equally responsible has Dirk was. So would replacing Dirk with a role player PF who has the same impact has Terry just has a PF win the title? If they were equal they would have to be replaced by a equally impact player. Durk>>>> Terry which is why people say who is more important. They are not equals. Nobody would build a team around Jason ****ing Terry.

[juju151111]

Lol. Well what does it say for Pippen if you feel the only caliber player capable of replacing him is Olajuwan?:eek: :eek:

My point about the Jordan/Spreewell comparison is All players are replaceable. Even the GOAT.
Sprewell and Pippen ain't winning Shit in 91-3. You could replace Pippen with Grant Hill,Penny, Charles,Mullin etc.... I never said they would win it in 94. I said they had a chance in 94. A lot of teams throughout history had a chance to win it. Mj n Hakeem is locked every single year.

[97 bulls]

:biggums: off course you need a replacement. Lol this has nothing to do with Any of that. You said Jason Terry is equally responsible has Dirk was. So would replacing Dirk with a role player PF who has the same impact has Terry just has a PF win the title? If they were equal they would have to be replaced by a equally impact player. Durk>>>> Terry which is why people say who is more important. They are not equals. Nobody would build a team around Jason ****ing Terry.
Lol you're totally changing my argument. Dont replace the player. All players are replaceable. Removing Either Dirk, or Terry, or Marion, Chandler, Kidd, basically eliminates the Mavs form winning a championship. If you feel they must be replaced, then they should get full credit. Youd give them full blame if they played like shit and cost the Mavs a championship right?

You blame Granville Waiters, and Kyle Macy, Brad Sellers, etc for Jordan not being able to win more championships right? So why not credit them for winning?

[juju151111]

Lol you're totally changing my argument. Dont replace the player. All players are replaceable. Removing Either Dirk, or Terry, or Marion, Chandler, Kidd, basically eliminates the Mavs form winning a championship. If you feel they must be replaced, then they should get full credit. Youd give them full blame if they played like shit and cost the Mavs a championship right?

You blame Granville Waiters, and Kyle Macy, Brad Sellers, etc for Jordan not being able to win more championships right? So why not credit them for winning?
I'm not discrediting them for winning. This has noting to do with that. You said JT and Marion is has important has Dirk. This is what I'm arguing. I don't care about what you was arguing with other people. You seem to think role players have the same impact has stars in your warped universe where Pippen led his team to 10 championships.

[97 bulls]

Sprewell and Pippen ain't winning Shit in 91-3. You could replace Pippen with Grant Hill,Penny, Charles,Mullin etc.... I never said they would win it in 94. I said they had a chance in 94. A lot of teams throughout history had a chance to win it. Mj n Hakeem is locked every single year.
I agree that the Bulls would still win if you replaced Pippen with Hill or Hardaway. Not sure about Mullin due to lack of defense and losing a guy capable of running an offense.

They had a chance to win without Jordan. Youre showing your agenda. Something im sure both of us would vehemently deny pre 94. You just cant get off Jordans nuts.

To be honest, guys like you are why this thread was made. Ive never seen a fan credit Mchale, Parish, Jabaar, Worthy, etc the way players like Pippen Rodman, and Bryant, Gasol when it comes to championships.

[97 bulls]

I'm not discrediting them for winning. This has noting to do with that. You said JT and Marion is has important has Dirk. This is what I'm arguing. I don't care about what you was arguing with other people. You seem to think role players have the same impact has stars in your warped universe where Pippen led his team to 10 championships.
Lol ok. Why didnt Jordan win any championships in the 80s?

[KyleKong]

This doesn't work for true Alphas

Magic would have won without Worthy and Kareem in his prime

Bird is the same, Jordan, Russell, Bryant, Hakeem.

Nobody could challenge that these guys were THE MAN on their teams

For 2nd teir players like LeBron, then it's perfectly fine.

Lets see LeBron win a ring without multiple hall of fame teammates ( and not get bailed out by ray allen) and then he'll be a TA.

Just. So. Dumb.

[97 bulls]

And again JuJu. Im not implying that Terry is as good as Nowitzki. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get full credit for that championship. Thats all im saying.

And hou want to talk about impact? How impactful would Nowitzki be if he were surrounded by a bunch of guys that couldnt shoot?

[juju151111]

I agree that the Bulls would still win if you replaced Pippen with Hill or Hardaway. Not sure about Mullin due to lack of defense and losing a guy capable of running an offense.

They had a chance to win without Jordan. Youre showing your agenda. Something im sure both of us would vehemently deny pre 94. You just cant get off Jordans nuts.

To be honest, guys like you are why this thread was made. Ive never seen a fan credit Mchale, Parish, Jabaar, Worthy, etc the way players like Pippen Rodman, and Bryant, Gasol when it comes to championships.
They had no chance to win without Mj. Pippen and Tony couldn't get past the second round. Lol Gtfo I was in a thread with you a few months back defending pippen. The only time I disagree with you is when you try to downplay Mj. In any other thread with Pippen I defend him. I don't understand the last line of you post. Sprewell can't replace Mj at all at nothing. I actually agree with you on those bulls teams. I think the 96-97 team wouldn't get best by anyone but maybe the 86 Celtics and that's still maybe.

[juju151111]

Lol ok. Why didnt Jordan win any championships in the 80s?
His team wasn't good enough or choked in big games. He had to wait for Pippen and Grant to mature.

[juju151111]

And again JuJu. Im not implying that Terry is as good as Nowitzki. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get full credit for that championship. Thats all im saying.

And hou want to talk about impact? How impactful would Nowitzki be if he were surrounded by a bunch of guys that couldnt shoot?
He still has more impact then JT with a bunch of guys who couldn't shoot. This is my point from the start. Some players have more impact.

[97 bulls]

They had no chance to win without Mj. Pippen and Tony couldn't get past the second round. Lol Gtfo I was in a thread with you a few months back defending pippen. The only time I disagree with you is when you try to downplay Mj. In any other thread with Pippen I defend him. I don't understand the last line of you post. Sprewell can't replace Mj at all at nothing. I actually agree with you on those bulls teams. I think the 96-97 team wouldn't get best by anyone but maybe the 86 Celtics and that's still maybe.
Ive never downplayed Jordan. Hes the greatest ever. Im on record as stating he has no weakness. NONE. He is the only player I say that about. But he cant win by himself. And in order to win you need a strong team.

[tazb]

Kobe hasn't won a title without Phil Jackson or Fisher.