Number of HOF's needed by GOATs for Championships

[IllegalD]

I thought it'd be interesting to count the total number of Hall of Fame teammates GOAT candidates needed during their championship runs.

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol
[2 HOFs for 5 rings]

LeBron: Wade, Bosh, Jesus
[3 HOFs for 2 rings]

Jordan: Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc (not officially inducted, but a shoe-in because of his international career), Parish
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Shaq: Kobe, Wade, Mourning, Gary Payton
[4 HOFs for 4 rings]

Duncan: Robinson, Parker, Ginobili
[3 HOFs for 4 rings]

Bird: McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Tiny Archibald
[5 HOFs for 3 rings]

Magic: Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo
[4 HOFs for 5 rings]

Kareem: Oscar, Magic, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo
[5 HOFs for 6rings]

Wilt: Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich
[5 HOFs for 2 rings]

[livinglegend]

Kobe lost with 3 HOF: Shaq, Malone, Payton
Kobe also lost with HOF: Howard, Nash

[LAZERUSS]

I thought it'd be interesting to count the total number of Hall of Fame teammates GOAT candidates needed during their championship runs.

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol
[2 HOFs for 5 rings]

LeBron: Wade, Bosh, Jesus
[3 HOFs for 2 rings]

Jordan: Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc (not officially inducted, but a shoe-in because of his international career), Parish
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Shaq: Kobe, Wade, Mourning, Gary Payton
[4 HOFs for 4 rings]

Duncan: Robinson, Parker, Ginobili
[3 HOFs for 4 rings]

Bird: McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Tiny Archibald
[5 HOFs for 3 rings]

Magic: Kareem, Worthy, Mychael Thompson, Wilkes, McAdoo
[5 HOFs for 5 rings]

Kareem: Oscar, Worthy, Mychael Thompson, Wilkes, McAdoo
[5 HOFs for 6rings]

Wilt: Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich
[5 HOFs for 2 rings]


Mychael Thompson? What HOF is he in?

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.

Kareem would only have one without MAGIC.

[K Xerxes]

Pointless as not as all HOFs are equal or play at the same age on championship teams. Do people even care about context anymore?

[IllegalD]

Kobe lost with 3 HOF: Shaq, Malone, Payton
Kobe also lost with HOF: Howard, Nash

By that logic Shaq also lost with 3 HOF: Kobe, Malone, Payton. And it would count more towards him than Kobe since "they were his team", right?

Also how many times did Bird/Magic lose in the 80's with multiple HOFs?

How many times did Wilt lose with multiple HOFs?

Stay on topic. It's the number of HOF teammates in years where they won the championship.

[IllegalD]

Mychael Thompson? What HOF is he in?

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.

Kareem would only have one without MAGIC.

Noted. Corrected.


Yes he did. Payton was on the 2006 championship team and even has a game winner in the finals.

[red1]

meaningless drivel

[LAZERUSS]

By that logic Shaq also lost with 3 HOF: Kobe, Malone, Payton. And it would count more towards him than Kobe since "they were his team", right?

Also how many times did Bird/Magic lose in the 80's with multiple HOFs?

How many times did Wilt lose with multiple HOFs?

Stay on topic. It's the number of HOF teammates in years where they won the championship.

Chamberlain's '67 team beat a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers, and his '72 team beat a Knicks team with FIVE HOFers.

So, please post the HOF casts that these teams beat, then, too.

[IllegalD]

meaningless drivel

Kinda paints a different picture on who had the most help to win those chips, huh...? :confusedshrug:

[red1]

Kinda paints a different picture on who had the most help to win those chips, huh...? :confusedshrug:
as I said, meaningless drivel

[IllegalD]

as I said, meaningless drivel

So "meaningless" that you felt so compelled to respond twice. :lol

[BigTicket]

Lol at counting Parish for Jordan.

Such an obvious agenda thread.

[Collie]

Parish with the Bulls? Really?

[IllegalD]

Lol at counting Parish for Jordan.

Such an obvious agenda thread.

People count Nash as a HOF on the 2013 Lakers... :confusedshrug:

Even if you eliminate Parish that's still 3 HOFs Jordan needed for his 6 rings, to Kobe's 2.

[red1]

So "meaningless" that you felt so compelled to respond twice. :lol
this is what i posted when I "felt compelled to post twice"

meaningless drivel

as I said, meaningless drivel

ah the compulsion! :lol

[IllegalD]

this is what i posted when I "felt compelled to post twice"



ah the compulsion! :lol

Make that THRICE. :roll:

[red1]

op explain this in your own words :lol

http://wagesofwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kobe-malone-shaq-payton-174979_480_art_R0.jpeg
http://tracysentertainmentbistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tumblr_m8isiiUtjQ1qewi8do1_500.jpg

[iamgine]

HOFs better than themselves:

Kobe: Shaq (3 rings)

[ShackEelOKneel]

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.



I must have imagined 2006.

[IllegalD]

op explain this in your own words :lol

http://wagesofwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kobe-malone-shaq-payton-174979_480_art_R0.jpeg
http://tracysentertainmentbistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tumblr_m8isiiUtjQ1qewi8do1_500.jpg

What part of years when they won championships do you not understand?
:facepalm

If you want to count number of HOF players played with period Shaq has everyone beat by a mile: Kobe, Wade, Zo, Payton, Malone, LeBron, Nash, KG, Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo, Amare, etc... and yet still has less rings than Kobe.

[Ne 1]

Kobe lost with 3 HOF: Shaq, Malone, Payton
Kobe also lost with HOF: Howard, Nash
You mean Howard lost with HOF: Nash, Gasol

[IllegalD]

Typical hypocritical, flip-flopping Kobe haters. So 40 year old Nash with a broken leg counts as a HOF but Parish doesn't? :roll:

[T_L_P]

Parker and Manu didn't play like Hall of Famers in '03. Parker didn't play like one in '05 either.

Also, HOFs better than themselves:

Kobe: Shaq (3 rings)

[red1]

What part of years when they won championships do you not understand?
:facepalm

If you want to count number of HOF players played with period Shaq has everyone beat by a mile: Kobe, Wade, Zo, Payton, Malone, LeBron, Nash, KG, Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo, Amare, etc... and yet still has less rings than Kobe.
I got you :lol

[red1]

you lost broski

[IllegalD]

you lost broski

My original post:

"I thought it'd be interesting to count the total number of Hall of Fame teammates GOAT candidates needed during their championship runs."

You fail at simple reading comprehension. :facepalm

[pastis]

Parker and Manu didn't play like Hall of Famers in '03. Parker didn't play like one in '05 either.

Also, HOFs better than themselves:

Kobe: Shaq (3 rings)

here we go again. another round.

duncan didnt play like a HOF in 05-14

duncans "weak" robinson was way better than dirk ever has as C.

[red1]

My original post:

"I thought it'd be interesting to count the total number of Hall of Fame teammates GOAT candidates needed during their championship runs."

You fail at simple reading comprehension. :facepalm
Should I make a thread about players who couldnt make the playoffs with 4 or 5 hall of famers? Or how about a thread about players who chucked their team out of a championship alongside three other hall of famers?


http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3055/kobe4.png

[BuffaloBill]

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.


lol

[T_L_P]

here we go again. another round.

duncan didnt play like a HOF in 05-14

duncans "weak" robinson was way better than dirk ever has as C.

Duncan from '05-'14: 20 / 11 / 3 / 2

That's better than Parker's career numberrs, Manu's career numbers, and Robinson's career numbers.

Yet they're the Hall of Fame quality players and Duncan isn't?

Get a grip. You've still yet to explain anything about Duncan's overrated defense (you've just called it overrated), and then you add a bunch of conjecture about easy baskets, even though he was still getting double teamed a lot from 05-08, which is the hardest thing to play against in basketball.

You fail. :facepalm

Even the Dirk fans on this website readily admit Duncan was a better player. Though you have an agenda, so I can't expect you to be honest -- or coherent.

[ArbitraryWater]

such meaningless bullshit as no context is applied what so ever..

[IllegalD]

Should I make a thread about players who couldnt make the playoffs with 4 or 5 hall of famers? Or how about a thread about players who chucked their team out of a championship alongside three other hall of famers?


http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3055/kobe4.png

Lakers made the playoffs in 2013 thanks to Kobe. :confusedshrug:

[red1]

Lakers made the playoffs in 2013 thanks to Kobe. :confusedshrug:
should we give them an award? perhaps a cookie?

[IllegalD]

should we give them an award? perhaps a cookie?

Perhaps you actually make factual assertions instead of grasping for straws being a butthurt Kobe-hater. Did Kobe rape you?

[red1]

Perhaps you actually make factual assertions instead of grasping for straws being a butthurt Kobe-hater. Did Kobe rape you?
do you know what the word hyperbole means?

[IllegalD]

do you know what the word hyperbole means?

Do you know what the word backpedalling means?

[red1]

Do you know what the word backpedalling means?
I'll take that as a no

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

[IllegalD]

I'll take that as a no

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

http://jordankinley.com/gif/backpedal.gif

[red1]

http://jordankinley.com/gif/backpedal.gif
how am I even backpedaling? are you really this dumb? :lol

[IllegalD]

how am I even backpedaling? are you really this dumb? :lol

Are you really this obsessed with Kobe?

[red1]

thats what I thought

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3055/kobe4.png

[pastis]

Duncan from '05-'14: 20 / 11 / 3 / 2

That's better than Parker's career numberrs, Manu's career numbers, and Robinson's career numbers.

Yet they're the Hall of Fame quality players and Duncan isn't?

Get a grip. You've still yet to explain anything about Duncan's overrated defense (you've just called it overrated), and then you add a bunch of conjecture about easy baskets, even though he was still getting double teamed a lot from 05-08, which is the hardest thing to play against in basketball.

You fail. :facepalm

Even the Dirk fans on this website readily admit Duncan was a better player. Though you have an agenda, so I can't expect you to be honest -- or coherent.

you have been schooled so often by Dmavs41 and creepingdeath. Dirk clearly more versatile player, by far.
yes and now your argumnt: duncan is the defense ANCHOR; ANCHOR; blabla ANCHOR; ANCHOR, ANCHOR, hi ANCHOR; ANCHOR, ANCHOR; ship ship ANCHOR; pirate ANCHOR, ANCHOR, tuuuuuuuut, tuuuuuut, ANCHO, ANCHOR

but like you emphasize and recognized as well: Duncan at best on the same level with robinson, manu, parker. damn how good and super stacked these spurs are. oh damn paker and ginobili!! love them, manu and parker so good, having to carry these ANCHOR, ANCHOR, ANCHOR since 04-05-


btw: so funny, how you are trying AT Every thread to emphasize ridiculous Duncan and to underrate his teamm8s...so funny your agenda

[TheMan]

Pointless as not as all HOFs are equal or play at the same age on championship teams. Do people even care about context anymore?
This

I lol when OP included Parish for MJ/Bulls, he was a corpse by then.

[JellyBean]

Mychael Thompson? What HOF is he in?

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.

Kareem would only have one without MAGIC.


Well, the great Mychael Thompson is in the University of Minnesota (Basketball) Hall of Fame, if that counts :D

[Calabis]

Typical hypocritical, flip-flopping Kobe haters. So 40 year old Nash with a broken leg counts as a HOF but Parish doesn't? :roll:

Nash actually played and wasn't sitting on the bench

[IllegalD]

This

I lol when OP included Parish for MJ/Bulls, he was a corpse by then.

Did you "lol" when people count 40 year old Nash as HOF to discredit Kobe? :confusedshrug:

[TheMan]

People count Nash as a HOF on the 2013 Lakers... :confusedshrug:

Even if you eliminate Parish that's still 3 HOFs Jordan needed for his 6 rings, to Kobe's 2.
True but Shaq is easily a top 10 GOAT, Pippen nor Rodman are anywhere near top 10 GOAT. To take it further, Shaq gifted Kobe those first 3 rings. You can't say that about Pip or Rodman.

Agenda much?

[TheMan]

Did you "lol" when people count 40 year old Nash as HOF to discredit Kobe? :confusedshrug:
No because he didn't win a chip with him:confusedshrug:

[AintNoSunshine]

Shaq, Malone, Payton, Gasol, Howard, Nash

Wade, Allen

Pippen, Rodman

[K Xerxes]

Are you really this obsessed with Kobe?

Clearly you're the one obsessed as you decided to make a bullshit topic with bullshit criteria to prop up Kobe.

[K Xerxes]

Did you "lol" when people count 40 year old Nash as HOF to discredit Kobe? :confusedshrug:

So what you're essentially saying is that if Kobe somehow led the Lakers to a chip, he would actually be worse off with this criteria:

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol, Howard, Nash
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Worse ratio than 2:5. Let's end this topic now.

[ArbitraryWater]

So what you're essentially saying is that if Kobe somehow led the Lakers to a chip, he would actually be worse off with this criteria:

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol, Howard, Nash
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Worse ratio than 2:5. Let's end this topic now.

lol this.. its ridiculous :lol

[T_L_P]

you have been schooled so often by Dmavs41 and creepingdeath. Dirk clearly more versatile player, by far.
yes and now your argumnt: duncan is the defense ANCHOR; ANCHOR; blabla ANCHOR; ANCHOR, ANCHOR, hi ANCHOR; ANCHOR, ANCHOR; ship ship ANCHOR; pirate ANCHOR, ANCHOR, tuuuuuuuut, tuuuuuut, ANCHO, ANCHOR

but like you emphasize and recognized as well: Duncan at best on the same level with robinson, manu, parker. damn how good and super stacked these spurs are. oh damn paker and ginobili!! love them, manu and parker so good, having to carry these ANCHOR, ANCHOR, ANCHOR since 04-05-


btw: so funny, how you are trying AT Every thread to emphasize ridiculous Duncan and to underrate his teamm8s...so funny your agenda

What are you even talking about? DMAVS has Duncan ranked 4th all time (or 5th, not sure). Being more versatile is an absolute cop out: versatility is not more important than impact. Being able to guard 1-5 adequately is not even in the same league as being able to guard 4-5 well. :facepalm

Duncan won 2 MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs. Manu, Parker and Robinson have 1 MVP and 1 Finals MVP altogether. Yet they're on the same level as Tim. Hilarious.

Your posts have no substance. I'm honestly starting to question if you're 12 years old, because you can't seem to string together a sentence.

"Manuu carred Duncan since 04-05; I cant say y I just feel like sayin it."" Manu has been a 15/4/4 player since the '05 title run, and apparently he's carrying the 20/11/3/3 player? Wow, only a genius could have worked that one out. Good job. :applause:

[ILLsmak]

Mychael Thompson? What HOF is he in?

Shaq didn't win a ring with Gary Payton.

Kareem would only have one without MAGIC.

GP won a game for them lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZ5FQraS6I

2:13, if you squint.

-Smak

[LAZERUSS]

GP won a game for them lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZ5FQraS6I

2:13, if you squint.

-Smak

Yep...Payton carrying Wade to his first ring.

[IllegalD]

So what you're essentially saying is that if Kobe somehow led the Lakers to a chip, he would actually be worse off with this criteria:

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol, Howard, Nash
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Worse ratio than 2:5. Let's end this topic now.

The criteria was set by this msg board on how the value of championship rings is measured when Kobe was winning his. Now that those things that were used to discredit him can be applied to other players (ahem LeBron ahem) the haters get all salty and start backpedalling on the very criteria that they themselves set when they were trying so hard to discredit Kobe.

:applause:

[Milbuck]

This list is entirely worthless until you factor in how those HOFers were playing, and where they were in their careers. Anyone can throw out "B-b-but he had 3 HOF teammates!"...but completely ignore the fact that 1 or 2 of them might've had one foot into retirement.

[stalkerforlife]

Real talk...

Pau 0-16 in the playoffs without Kobe.

Y'all really believe that Pau, without an alpha leader, makes the HOF?

Kobe put Pau in the HOF.

Kobe won b2b titles with the least amount of help in NBA history along with Hakeem's Rockets.

[IllegalD]

This list is entirely worthless until you factor inhow those HOFers were playing, and where they were in their careers. Anyone can throw out "B-b-but he had 3 HOF teammates!"...but completely ignore the fact that 1 or 2 of them might've had one foot into retirement.

The only one that is a reach which I threw in there as a joke was Parish on the Bulls. Everyone else, while some may be past their prime, still serviceable. Walton was 6th man of the year and Ray Allen is still capable of HOF-type moments/quarters as we've seen.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kobe needed the least amount of HOFs for his 5 rings compared to the other candidates.

But of course all of you will zero in on the Parish on the Bulls thing and completely disregard everything else because the truth is scary to you.

[Hey Yo]

The Basketball HOF is a joke. If they didn't include college accolades + what they did in the NBA, then a lot wouldn't even be in there.

[GovernmentMan]

The only one that is a reach which I threw in there as a joke was Parish on the Bulls. Everyone else, while some may be past their prime, still serviceable. Walton was 6th man of the year and Ray Allen is still capable of HOF-type moments/quarters as we've seen.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kobe needed the least amount of HOFs for his 5 rings compared to the other candidates.

But of course all of you will zero in on the Parish on the Bulls thing and completely disregard everything else because the truth is scary to you.

That doesn't even make sense

Yeah Kobe only had one HOF teammate for the 3 peat.

But that HOF teammate also happens to be a top 10 GOAT.

Who also happens to have been the best player on the team and won all the Finals MVPs

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Wasn't Glen Rice on those laker teams? i know he isn't in the HOF but he's close.

And if there ever was a HOF for role players, Robert Horry and Derek Fisher would both be Top 10, and they were on those Laker teams.

[jimmy77x]

How many of those "GOATS" colluded in their prime with other HOF in their prime to win easy cheap rings, only one comes to mind.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

How many of those "GOATS" colluded in their prime with other HOF in their prime to win easy cheap rings, only one comes to mind.

It's OK for General Managers to "collude" and try to trade for great players to "team up" with their current roster....

but it's not OK for players to decide their own free agency?


If Mitch Kupchak tries to trade for Kevin Love so he can pair him up with Kobe Bryant, is that "colluding" by the GM? No difference. When Kobe asks for "help", he is asking for colluding. Just has someone else do the work for him.

[TheMan]

The only one that is a reach which I threw in there as a joke was Parish on the Bulls. Everyone else, while some may be past their prime, still serviceable. Walton was 6th man of the year and Ray Allen is still capable of HOF-type moments/quarters as we've seen.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kobe needed the least amount of HOFs for his 5 rings compared to the other candidates.

But of course all of you will zero in on the Parish on the Bulls thing and completely disregard everything else because the truth is scary to you.
Since this predictably turned into a Kobe/MJ/LeBron thread. Let's look closely at their 'help'...

In reality, MJ and LeBron have had less help than Kobe and here's why. MJ won all his chips as the top dog, never was a sidekick, thus his 6 FMVPs. Where is Pippen on the GOAT list overall? Top 30? What about Rodman? Top 75?

Let's look at LeBron, sure he colluded and stacked the deck in his favor but there is no doubt he's the best player in both Heat chips, he has 2 FMVPs (his second was based mostly on late Gm 6 heroics and monster Gm 7, the rest of the games he was meh). Where is Wade in GOAT lists? Top 25? What about Ray Ray? Top 50 maybe?

Now let's look at Kobe and this will be short, Shaq was the top dog in Bryant's first three titles. Kobe at that point was replaceable, put Paul Pierce with Shaq and they still win. Shaq won all 3 FMVPs in that threepeat. Now take off Shaq, they ain't winning shit. Kobe's repeat Lakers was his team so he get's his 2 FMVPs. Where is Shaq in GOAT lists? Easily top 8. I have no idea where I'd put Gasol, he get's both overrated and underrated here according to agenda.

There you have it, Kobe had more help...

[Hey Yo]

Since this predictably turned into a Kobe/MJ/LeBron thread. Let's look closely at their 'help'...

In reality, MJ and LeBron have had less help than Kobe and here's why. MJ won all his chips as the top dog, never was a sidekick, thus his 6 FMVPs. Where is Pippen on the GOAT list overall? Top 30? What about Rodman? Top 75?

Let's look at LeBron, sure he colluded and stacked the deck in his favor but there is no doubt he's the best player in both Heat chips, he has 2 FMVPs (his second was based mostly on late Gm 6 heroics and monster Gm 7, the rest of the games he was meh). Where is Wade in GOAT lists? Top 25? What about Ray Ray? Top 50 maybe?

Now let's look at Kobe and this will be short, Shaq was the top dog in Bryant's first three titles. Kobe at that point was replaceable, put Paul Pierce with Shaq and they still win. Shaq won all 3 FMVPs in that threepeat. Now take off Shaq, they ain't winning shit. Kobe's repeat Lakers was his team so he get's his 2 FMVPs. Where is Shaq in GOAT lists? Easily top 8. I have no idea where I'd put Gasol, he get's both overrated and underrated here according to agenda.

There you have it, Kobe had more help...

Definition of collusion:

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Who did the above definition?

[jimmy77x]

Definition of collusion:

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Who did the above definition?

it was planned months before free agency, which was secret and illegal. You're just to blind to figure it out.

[Hey Yo]

it was planned months before free agency, which was secret and illegal. You're just to blind to figure it out.
It's illegal for players to talk about free agency???

Besides, it is well documented that James wanted Bosh to come to Cleveland. Why would he want that if those 2 were already going to Miami?

You're clearly the one who's dunce, blind and butthurt

[guy]

I thought it'd be interesting to count the total number of Hall of Fame teammates GOAT candidates needed during their championship runs.

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol
[2 HOFs for 5 rings]

LeBron: Wade, Bosh, Jesus
[3 HOFs for 2 rings]

Jordan: Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc (not officially inducted, but a shoe-in because of his international career), Parish
[4 HOFs for 6 rings]

Shaq: Kobe, Wade, Mourning, Gary Payton
[4 HOFs for 4 rings]

Duncan: Robinson, Parker, Ginobili
[3 HOFs for 4 rings]

Bird: McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Tiny Archibald
[5 HOFs for 3 rings]

Magic: Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo
[4 HOFs for 5 rings]

Kareem: Oscar, Magic, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo
[5 HOFs for 6rings]

Wilt: Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich
[5 HOFs for 2 rings]

Parish :oldlol: Hilarious agenda. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but you forgot Mitch Richmond then on the 2002 Lakers who was just recently voted in. There's a third HOFer for Kobe

And you should probably take Toni Kukoc off cause he's far from a shoe-in. He's been retired for almost 8 years and still hasn't made it. Players like Drazen Petrovic and Oscar Schmidt are considered as much greater international players and it took them like 10 years to make it (and who knows if it would've been longer for Drazen if it wasn't for him being dead). Glen Rice probably has just as much if not more of a chance to get in then Kukoc. So you should probably include him in there if you're including Kukoc.

And you should probably change the topic from "needed" to "had". Pretty sure Jordan didn't really "need" Parish, Kobe/Shaq didn't need Richmond, etc.

[Rose'sACL]

The only one that is a reach which I threw in there as a joke was Parish on the Bulls. Everyone else, while some may be past their prime, still serviceable. Walton was 6th man of the year and Ray Allen is still capable of HOF-type moments/quarters as we've seen.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kobe needed the least amount of HOFs for his 5 rings compared to the other candidates.

But of course all of you will zero in on the Parish on the Bulls thing and completely disregard everything else because the truth is scary to you.
how is ray allen capable of HOF-type moments? HOF-type moments mean triple doubles or 30-40 points games in playoffs.
Ray allen is a good role player now. i used the word "good" because he is not consistent. He goes from very good to terrible series to series.

[Ne 1]

True but Shaq is easily a top 10 GOAT, Pippen nor Rodman are anywhere near top 10 GOAT. To take it further, Shaq gifted Kobe those first 3 rings. You can't say that about Pip or Rodman.

Agenda much?
Nope. Those 3 rings belong to Kobe as much as they belong to Kobe . No rings for Kobe means no rings for Shaq either.

[Clyde]

so to summarize, championship teams are made up of great players.

:facepalm

[guy]

The only one that is a reach which I threw in there as a joke was Parish on the Bulls. Everyone else, while some may be past their prime, still serviceable. Walton was 6th man of the year and Ray Allen is still capable of HOF-type moments/quarters as we've seen.

Still doesn't change the fact that Kobe needed the least amount of HOFs for his 5 rings compared to the other candidates.

But of course all of you will zero in on the Parish on the Bulls thing and completely disregard everything else because the truth is scary to you.

The other candidates? I guess that's why you left Hakeem off? :oldlol: Right, there's no agenda.

That's a totally flawed argument anyway. You count Shaq as 1 HOFer for Kobe and then you count Oscar Robertson as 1 HOFer for Kareem. Well, isn't that misleading? Kobe won 3 with Shaq. Kareem won 1 with Oscar. You're having Oscar represent as much for Kareem as Shaq does for Kobe.

Under your scenario, if those first 3 titles Kobe won with Shaq he actually won with a different HOFer instead every year i.e. Shaq then Duncan then KG for example, that's 2 more HOFers, but its not like Kobe really had more HOF help under that scenario then he did playing with Shaq for all 3 years.

The number to measure should really be each HOF X # of rings. So it would look more like this:

Kobe - 5 rings with 6 HOF teammate seasons (Shaq-3x, Mitch-1x :D , Gasol-2x)
Jordan - 6 rings with 10 HOF teammates seasons (Pippen-6x, Rodman-3x, Parish-1x)
Lebron - 2 rings with 5 HOF teammates seasons (Wade-2x, Bosh-2x, Ray-1x)
Shaq - 4 rings with 7 HOF teammate seasons (Kobe-3x, Mitch-1x, Wade-1x, Zo-1x, Payton-1x)
Duncan - 4 rings with 8 HOF teammate seasons (Parker-3x, Manu-3x, Robinson-2x)

And even then its still flawed. I don't see why we would ignore years that players couldn't win with HOFers. What sense does that make? So take that into account and we'd have this:

Kobe - 5 rings with 20 HOF teammate seasons (Shaq-8x, Gasol-6x, Rodman-1x, Mitch-1x, Malone-1x, Payton-1x, Nash-1x, Howard-1x)
Jordan - 6 rings with 15 HOF teammate seasons (Pippen-10x, Rodman-3x, Parish-1x, Gervin-1x)
Lebron - 2 rings with 8 HOF teammate seasons (Wade-3x, Bosh-3x, Ray-1x, Shaq-1x)
Shaq - 4 rings with 30 HOF teammate seasons (Kobe-8x, Wade-3x, Payton-3x, Zo-3x, Nash-2x, Hill-2x, Amare-2x, Lebron-1x, KG-1x, Pierce-1x, Allen-1x, Rodman-1x, Mitch-1x, Malone-1x)
Duncan - 4 rings with 28 HOF teammate seasons(Parker-11x, Manu-11x, Robinson-6x)

And even that's flawed. Obviously doesn't take into account that certain HOFers are better then others, some players weren't playing at HOF levels when they played with each other, etc. (2003 Robinson as a teammate should definitely not hold as much weight as 2000 Shaq as a teammate for example.)

[T_L_P]

The other candidates? I guess that's why you left Hakeem off? :oldlol: Right, there's no agenda.

That's a totally flawed argument anyway. You count Shaq as 1 HOFer for Kobe and then you count Oscar Robertson as 1 HOFer for Kareem. Well, isn't that misleading? Kobe won 3 with Shaq. Kareem won 1 with Oscar. You're having Oscar represent as much for Kareem as Shaq does for Kobe.

Under your scenario, if those first 3 titles Kobe won with Shaq he actually won with a different HOFer instead every year i.e. Shaq then Duncan then KG for example, that's 2 more HOFers, but its not like Kobe really had more HOF help under that scenario then he did playing with Shaq for all 3 years.

The number to measure should really be each HOF X # of rings. So it would look more like this:

Kobe - 5 rings with 6 HOF teammate seasons (Shaq-3x, Mitch-1x :D , Gasol-2x)
Jordan - 6 rings with 10 HOF teammates seasons (Pippen-6x, Rodman-3x, Parish-1x)
Lebron - 2 rings with 5 HOF teammates seasons (Wade-2x, Bosh-2x, Ray-1x)
Shaq - 4 rings with 7 HOF teammate seasons (Kobe-3x, Mitch-1x, Wade-1x, Zo-1x, Payton-1x)
Duncan - 4 rings with 8 HOF teammate seasons (Parker-3x, Manu-3x, Robinson-2x)

And even then its still flawed. I don't see why we would ignore years that players couldn't win with HOFers. What sense does that make? So take that into account and we'd have this:

Kobe - 5 rings with 20 HOF teammate seasons (Shaq-8x, Gasol-6x, Rodman-1x, Mitch-1x, Malone-1x, Payton-1x, Nash-1x, Howard-1x)
Jordan - 6 rings with 15 HOF teammate seasons (Pippen-10x, Rodman-3x, Parish-1x, Gervin-1x)
Lebron - 2 rings with 8 HOF teammate seasons (Wade-3x, Bosh-3x, Ray-1x, Shaq-1x)
Shaq - 4 rings with 30 HOF teammate seasons (Kobe-8x, Wade-3x, Payton-3x, Zo-3x, Nash-2x, Hill-2x, Amare-2x, Lebron-1x, KG-1x, Pierce-1x, Allen-1x, Rodman-1x, Mitch-1x, Malone-1x)
Duncan - 4 rings with 28 HOF teammate seasons(Parker-11x, Manu-11x, Robinson-6x)

And even that's flawed. Obviously doesn't take into account that certain HOFers are better then others, some players weren't playing at HOF levels when they played with each other, etc. (2003 Robinson as a teammate should definitely not hold as much weight as 2000 Shaq as a teammate for example.)

03 Parker, Robinson and Manu didn't play like Hall of Famers. They didn't even play like fringe stars. None of them were top 50 players in the league.

This is what I hate about these "Played with HoF threads". If you just take D. Rob's career from 98-03 (the years he played with Duncan), is he a Hall of Famer?

[D-FENS]

Pointless as not as all HOFs are equal or play at the same age on championship teams. Do people even care about context anymore?

It doesn't look like it. This guy thinks Robert Parish made a difference to a Bulls championship

[K Xerxes]

Wait, since we've established that Kobe has played with 3 HOF team mates, doesn't that mean that Hakeem has the best ratio out of any GOAT candidate with 2 rings and 1 HOF team mate? And Drexler only played in 1995. Kobe can't even win with bullshit criteria fabricated by stans. :lol

[T_L_P]

Wait, since we've established that Kobe has played with 3 HOF team mates, doesn't that mean that Hakeem has the best ratio out of any GOAT candidate with 2 rings and 1 HOF team mate? And Drexler only played in 1995. Kobe can't even win with bullshit criteria fabricated by stans. :lol

Exactly! And they're not even taking into account that Jordan, LeBron, Duncan, Hakeem etc. were very rarely not the best player on their team.

Shaq x 8 seasons doesn't cut it. He was better than Kobe for all eight of them. 8 seasons of Shaq is a hell of a lot more than 11 seasons of Tony Parker or Scottie Pippen (not that Pippen or Parker aren't incredible players, but Shaq is without doubt a top 10 player), yet according to this list it isn't. I mean, this fool is counting past-being-past-their-prime Parish and Robinson. :facepalm

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Mitch Richmond played for the Lakers in their championship and he's a HOFer.

I knew I was forgetting people on those Shaq laker teams.

I'm sure I gotta go through those rosters....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/2001/07/23/richmond_lakers_ap/t1_richmond_ap.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wasn't Glen Rice on those laker teams? i know he isn't in the HOF but he's close.

And if there ever was a HOF for role players, Robert Horry and Derek Fisher would both be Top 10, and they were on those Laker teams.
Cmon say it..Horry, Fisher, Odom, Fox, Bynum, Artest = HOFers

[Ne 1]

Wasn't Glen Rice on those laker teams? i know he isn't in the HOF but he's close.

And if there ever was a HOF for role players, Robert Horry and Derek Fisher would both be Top 10, and they were on those Laker teams.
Lol no. The 3-peat Lakers relied HEAVILY on their two best players, Shaq and Kobe were a two-headed monster, just to illustrate that: 2001 season
Shaq 28ppg
Kobe 28ppg

2001 playoffs
Shaq 30ppg
Kobe 29ppg

2002 season
Shaq 27ppg
Kobe 25ppg

2002 playoffs
Shaq 28ppg
Kobe 27ppg

They won 3 straight championships, which is a rare feat. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice and Derek Fisher? Those team were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players starting at each position outside of their center and shooting guard, and they had a weak bench. Yet they weren't just a championship caliber team, but they were a DYNASTY. In fact, out of all the dynasties in NBA history those Lakers were CLEARLY the least talented. That's why Shaq and Kobe BOTH deserve huge amounts of credit for those 3 championships. Oh, and how did LA's "3rd options" stack up to other title teams? Even in 2000, the Lakers were called "two deep" as opposed to Portland who were called "too deep" in the WCF. If I ranked the top 50 players those years, I guarantee there wouldn't be a 3rd Laker in the list and I don't think anyone can make an argument that there were 3 Lakers that were top 50. In fact, I think it's obvious that the other 3 starters on those teams, while solid role players, were below average compared to the other starters at their position. That's why they needed Shaq averaging 27-30 ppg and Kobe averaging 25-29 ppg. Shaq was LA's first option, but there wasn't another player during the 3peat he wouldn't have been a second option next to Shaq. And I've said many times that Kobe was the second best player in the entire 2001 playoffs.

[T_L_P]

Lol no. The 3-peat Lakers relied HEAVILY on their two best players, Shaq and Kobe were a two-headed monster, just to illustrate that: 2001 season
Shaq 28ppg
Kobe 28ppg

2001 playoffs
Shaq 30ppg
Kobe 29ppg

2002 season
Shaq 27ppg
Kobe 25ppg

2002 playoffs
Shaq 28ppg
Kobe 27ppg

They won 3 straight championships, which is a rare feat. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice and Derek Fisher? Those team were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players starting at each position outside of their center and shooting guard, and they had a weak bench. Yet they weren't just a championship caliber team, but they were a DYNASTY. In fact, out of all the dynasties in NBA history those Lakers were CLEARLY the least talented. That's why Shaq and Kobe BOTH deserve huge amounts of credit for those 3 championships. Oh, and how did LA's "3rd options" stack up to other title teams? Even in 2000, the Lakers were called "two deep" as opposed to Portland who were called "too deep" in the WCF. If I ranked the top 50 players those years, I guarantee there wouldn't be a 3rd Laker in the list and I don't think anyone can make an argument that there were 3 Lakers that were top 50. In fact, I think it's obvious that the other 3 starters on those teams, while solid role players, were below average compared to the other starters at their position. That's why they needed Shaq averaging 27-30 ppg and Kobe averaging 25-29 ppg. Shaq was LA's first option, but as you said, there wasn't another player during the 3peat he wouldn't have been a second option next to Shaq. And I've said many times that Kobe was the second best player in the entire 2001 playoffs.

Fisher in the 01 Playoffs: 13/4/3/.618 TS%.

The other starters on the Lakers didn't need to be scorers. They had two players that pretty much combined for 70 every night. They were the perfect role players for that team, and even if they weren't, that's what you get when you have two superstars (not only superstars, top five players). They had great hustle, could defend for the most part, and Fisher/Horry are two of the more clutch players this league has seen (I'm probably exaggerating on Fisher, he just always seems to hit the big shots against us).

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Did that kobe stan just call Glen Rice a "below average role player" :biggums:

[Psileas]

Rick Barry: 0 HOF teammates for 1 ring and a pretty efficient ring/HOF ratio of infinity. :bowdown:

[Ne 1]

Did that kobe stan just call Glen Rice a "below average role player" :biggums:
My point is that the 3-peat Lakers were not a typical championship team, because there was no 3rd All-Star caliber player, or even really a 3rd scoring option save for 2000 with an aging Glen Rice in that role putting up 12/4/2 on 41% shooting in the playoffs. This left plenty of room for Kobe to play his game and produce like a first option himself with Derek Fisher or Rick Fox as the closest thing the team had to a 3rd option in 2001 and 2002. Neither were scoring options.

[MrC1991]

Robert Parish doesn't really count for Mj though...

[T_L_P]

My point is that the 3-peat Lakers were not a typical championship team, because there was no 3rd All-Star caliber player, or even really a 3rd scoring option save for 2000 with an aging Glen Rice in that role putting up 12/4/2 on 41% shooting in the playoffs. This left plenty of room for Kobe to play his game and produce like a first option himself with Derek Fisher or Rick Fox as the closest thing the team had to a 3rd option in 2001 and 2002. Neither were scoring options.

Fisher in the 01 Playoffs: 13/4/3/.618 TS%.

That's better than '03 Parker, Duncan's second option.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Rick Barry: 0 HOF teammates for 1 ring and a pretty efficient ring/HOF ratio of infinity. :bowdown:
Jamaal Wilkes doe

[Deuce Bigalow]

Fisher in the 01 Playoffs: 13/4/3/.618 TS%.

That's better than '03 Parker, Duncan's second option.
Compare their defenses, like team DRTG and opponent PPG, eFG%.

[T_L_P]

Compare their defenses, like team DRTG and opponent PPG, eFG%.

What, the Spurs defense and the Lakers? You think Parker was making big contributions to it?

[Deuce Bigalow]

What, the Spurs defense and the Lakers? You think Parker was making big contributions to it?
No it's that Duncan didn't need that much offensive help since thier defense was so good.

[houston]

great players make very good players into hall of famers

[T_L_P]

No it's that Duncan didn't need that much offensive help since thier defense was so good.

Sure, but even as defensive-minded teams go, Parker was a lousy second option. He definitely wasn't a defensive player, so all he needed to do was focus on offense, and he couldn't even do that right (for what was expected of him).

There's no way '03 Parker is better, in any sense of the word, than '01 Fisher. You're better off hiding them defensively, but Fisher shot at a much better rate without even handling the ball as much. :confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sure, but even as defensive-minded teams go, Parker was a lousy second option. He definitely wasn't a defensive player, so all he needed to do was focus on offense, and he couldn't even do that right (for what was expected of him).

There's no way '03 Parker is better, in any sense of the word, than '01 Fisher. You're better off hiding them defensively, but Fisher shot at a much better rate without even handling the ball as much. :confusedshrug:
Quit acting like the 03 Spurs weren't good.

[T_L_P]

Quit acting like the 03 Spurs weren't good.

Good, but not a championship team.

Hakeem's 94 Rockets are the only weaker championship team since the 80s. Not a single All-Star, and Parker's production dropped off a cliff in the Playoffs (compared to the regular season).

[Kiddlovesnets]

Well according to your definition of HOFs, Id say Lamar Odom should definitely be one, maybe even Derrick Fisher. Also even among the HOFs each individual is clearly different. Shaq himself is better than Ginobili and Parker combined.

[GODbe]

Kobe: Shaq, Gasol
:biggums:??

[Deuce Bigalow]

Good, but not a championship team.

Hakeem's 94 Rockets are the only weaker championship team since the 80s. Not a single All-Star, and Parker's production dropped off a cliff in the Playoffs (compared to the regular season).
They won the ****ing championship, they were the champions, how were the not a championship team?

60 wins during the regular season with 58 wins the season prior.

What is this "weaker" championship thing getting at?

[Ne 1]

Good, but not a championship team.

Hakeem's 94 Rockets are the only weaker championship team since the 80s. Not a single All-Star, and Parker's production dropped off a cliff in the Playoffs (compared to the regular season).
You know these teams really are never as bad as some make them out to be. This just shows that people don't have a proper understanding of how teams are built and how people have this fascination with using stats to prop up their favorite player. The '03 Spurs are pretty complete team to me.

Even the '94 Rockets are not as bad as people make them out to be. If John Starks doesn't choke that year, is Patrick Ewing suddenly on some godly level because he does it without not much help (his teammates stats would say that anyway)? Relative to who they faced, Hakeem had more than enough to beat everyone in his way, the team was built well around him and played well when it mattered. IMO the '95 Rockets were actually weaker and at the same time they faced stiffer competition (60 win teams starting in the first round), even though he had a better "#2 option", the overall team was weaker. It's more impressive to me than any other individual run in history to me actually.

People also underrate Duncan's 2003 team. Duncan dominated, no doubt. However when you actually sit down and watch them, you don't feel like they were a "weaker team". They won 60 games and I didn't feel that they were a weak team then, and I don't feel that way now after revisiting some of those games. All playoff long, everyone was commending the Spurs for building a perfect team around him. And if you watch them play, you never felt like the team had a weakness. They could flat out lock you down, could stifle guards on the perimeter with Bruce Bowen, throw bangers who were good post defenders like Malik Rose and give you excellent interior defense with Duncan/Robinson. If you look at the team as a whole, or watch them play, they weren't as weak as people are making them out to be after looking at just raw data. They could have been even more dominating if they had a 20 ppg secondary scorer, but the team wasn't really lacking anything.

Interior defense: Tim Duncan, David Robinson
Rebounding: Tim Duncan, Malik Rose, David Robinson
Perimeter defense: Bruce Bowen (Do you think if Antonio Daniels and Terry Porter were defending Kobe again that the Spurs are beating the Lakers in '03?)
Outside shooting: Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen
Playmaking off the dribble: Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker
Perimeter scoring: Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson (inconsistent but two out of the three would usually step up in basically every game to give you 30-40 pts combined)
Bench: Manu Ginobili, Malik Rose, Speedy Claxton
Coaching: Gregg Popovich

Add in some lucky breaks like Robert Horry going something like 0/20 on three pointers in the series and missing a buzzer beating 3 that would have shifted the series in the Lakers favor, weak Finals matchup against a team that didn't even win 50 games, avoiding a series with Kings (who matched up better against Spurs) because Chris Webber tore his knee against the Mavs (Dallas had awful interior defense), Dirk getting injured midway through in the WCF and teammates stepping up at right moments like Tony Parker in last two wins against the Lakers, Stephen Jackson against the Mavs, Bruce Bowen hitting 7 threes and shutting down Kobe in one of the wins against the Lakers etc etc, and it's not this groundbreaking accomplishment people are making it out to be. Duncan should rightly get a ton of credit, he played amazing, but just because there wasn't a strong "#2 scoring threat" doesn't mean the team sucked. That said, Duncan stepped up at all the right moments, closed out Lakers with a 37/16/4 game, won back home court against Mavs with a 34/24/6/6 game, and destroyed the Nets in the Finals.

[christian1923]

People try so hard to discredit kobe.

[T_L_P]

You know these teams really are never as bad as some make them out to be. This just shows that people don't have a proper understanding of how teams are built and how people have this fascination with using stats to prop up their favorite player. The '03 Spurs are pretty complete team to me.

Even the '94 Rockets are not as bad as people make them out to be. If John Starks doesn't choke that year, is Patrick Ewing suddenly on some godly level because he does it without not much help (his teammates stats would say that anyway)? Relative to who they faced, Hakeem had more than enough to beat everyone in his way, the team was built well around him and played well when it mattered. IMO the '95 Rockets were actually weaker and at the same time they faced stiffer competition (60 win teams starting in the first round), even though he had a better "#2 option", the overall team was weaker. It's more impressive to me than any other individual run in history to me actually.

People also underrate Duncan's 2003 team. Duncan dominated, no doubt. However when you actually sit down and watch them, you don't feel like they were a "weaker team". They won 60 games and I didn't feel that they were a weak team then, and I don't feel that way now after revisiting some of those games. All playoff long, everyone was commending the Spurs for building a perfect team around him. And if you watch them play, you never felt like the team had a weakness. They could flat out lock you down, could stifle guards on the perimeter with Bruce Bowen, throw bangers who were good post defenders like Malik Rose and give you excellent interior defense with Duncan/Robinson. If you look at the team as a whole, or watch them play, they weren't as weak as people are making them out to be after looking at just raw data. They could have been even more dominating if they had a 20 ppg secondary scorer, but the team wasn't really lacking anything.

Interior defense: Tim Duncan, David Robinson
Rebounding: Tim Duncan, Malik Rose, David Robinson
Perimeter defense: Bruce Bowen (Do you think if Antonio Daniels and Terry Porter were defending Kobe again that the Spurs are beating the Lakers in '03?)
Outside shooting: Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen
Playmaking off the dribble: Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker
Perimeter scoring: Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson (inconsistent but two out of the three would usually step up in basically every game to give you 30-40 pts combined)
Bench: Manu Ginobili, Malik Rose, Speedy Claxton
Coaching: Gregg Popovich

Add in some lucky breaks like Robert Horry going something like 0/20 on three pointers in the series and missing a buzzer beating 3 that would have shifted the series in the Lakers favor, weak Finals matchup against a team that didn't even win 50 games, avoiding a series with Kings (who matched up better against Spurs) because Chris Webber tore his knee against the Mavs (Dallas had awful interior defense), Dirk getting injured midway through in the WCF and teammates stepping up at right moments like Tony Parker in last two wins against the Lakers, Stephen Jackson against the Mavs, Bruce Bowen hitting 7 threes and shutting down Kobe in one of the wins against the Lakers etc etc, and it's not this groundbreaking accomplishment people are making it out to be. Duncan should rightly get a ton of credit, he played amazing, but just because there wasn't a strong "#2 scoring threat" doesn't mean the team sucked. That said, Duncan stepped up at all the right moments, closed out Lakers with a 37/16/4 game, won back home court against Mavs with a 34/24/6/6 game, and destroyed the Nets in the Finals.

I never said they were a bad team though. I said they were one of the weakest championship teams ever, something you've not yet refuted. A championship team can rarely be complete without a second star. Jordan and Pippen, Hakeem and Clyde, Shaq and Kobe, Kobe and Gasol, LeBron and Wade. You see the correlation? The only times players have managed to win without the second star can be counted on one hand, and that's because it's incredibly hard to do it, no matter how deep the team is. It took Duncan having a top 3-5 all time great Playoff run to win with that cast, and they had to go through the title favourites in the process (Shaq and Kobe had their problems, but even a troubled Shaq/Kobe tandem should have beaten that Spurs team, especially considering Bruce had hardly come into his own yet and Stephen Jackson played like dogshit, though Manu did step it up).

Am I underrating the cast to say it was definitely among the weakest to ever win it all? I don't think so.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I never said they were a bad team though. I said they were one of the weakest championship teams ever, something you've not yet refuted. A championship team can rarely be complete without a second star. Jordan and Pippen, Hakeem and Clyde, Shaq and Kobe, Kobe and Gasol, LeBron and Wade. You see the correlation? The only times players have managed to win without the second star can be counted on one hand, and that's because it's incredibly hard to do it, no matter how deep the team is. It took Duncan having a top 3-5 all time great Playoff run to win with that cast, and they had to go through the title favourites in the process (Shaq and Kobe had their problems, but even a troubled Shaq/Kobe tandem should have beaten that Spurs team, especially considering Bruce had hardly come into his own yet and Stephen Jackson played like dogshit, though Manu did step it up).

Am I underrating the cast to say it was definitely among the weakest to ever win it all? I don't think so.
03 Spurs: 60-22 - Coach of the year, MVP

78 Bullets: 44-38
75 Warriors: 48-34
77 Blazers: 49-33

[T_L_P]

03 Spurs: 60-22 - Coach of the year, MVP

78 Bullets: 44-38
75 Warriors: 48-34
77 Blazers: 49-33

07 Mavs: 67-15

01 Spurs: 58-24
01 Lakers: 56-26

Were the 01 Spurs better than the 01 Lakers? No, they weren't close. Regular season wins don't mean shit come Playoff time. In fact, the 01 Spurs were a rebuilding team. :facepalm

And it's funny you should use the records of 70s teams, when I specifically said it's the weakest team since the 80s, and even if it was stronger than those teams (which it wasn't), it'd still be one of the weakest, which is exactly what I said.

That train of thought is so simple. Regular Season standings are an indicator of the best teams, not the actual talen on them or Playoff success. :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

07 Mavs: 67-15

01 Spurs: 58-24
01 Lakers: 56-26

Were the 01 Spurs better than the 01 Lakers? No, they weren't close. Regular season wins don't mean shit come Playoff time. In fact, the 01 Spurs were a rebuilding team. :facepalm

And it's funny you should use the records of 70s teams, when I specifically said it's the weakest team since the 80s, and even if it was stronger than those teams (which it wasn't), it'd still be one of the weakest, which is exactly what I said.

That train of thought is so simple. Regular Season standings are an indicator of the best teams, not the actual talen on them or Playoff success. :lol
60 wins teams aren't weak sorry. Regular season records don't mean everything but if you're able to win that many games and have the best record in the league? Then you're a good team.

[Im so nba'd out]

kobe is not in the goat catagory OP.........he averaged 15 points in a final while his teammate averaged 40.If you get backpacked to a championship in your 20's you can never be considered a goat candidate.Sorry its just the rules...........

[T_L_P]

60 wins teams aren't weak sorry. Regular season records don't mean everything but if you're able to win that many games and have the best record in the league? Then you're a good team.

I've never said otherwise. They were a good, deep team, but the were also one of the weakest championship teams. Of course all championship teams are going to be good; I'm saying the vast majority of them were better than the '03 Spurs though. :confusedshrug:

2000-02 Lakers: stronger
04 Pistons: stronger
06 Heat: stronger
08 Celtics: strong
2009-10 Lakers: stronger
2011 Mavericks: I'm honestly not sure. They didn't really have another star either, but they did have a true defensive anchor as well as depth
2012-13 Heat: stronger

And how many of those teams had better regular season records than the '03 Spurs? The '03 Nets were stronger than the '02 Nets, despite winning I think 4 less games.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 HOFer per title team and 2 with a player who is only a HOFer due to his play outside the NBA.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 All Star teammate per title team.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings without an all league first team defensive teammate.

"STACKED"

:oldlol:

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 HOFer per title team and 2 with a player who is only a HOFer due to his play outside the NBA.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 All Star teammate per title team.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings without an all league first team defensive teammate.

"STACKED"

:oldlol:

Shaq + Richmond = 2 hof'ers on the team

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Shaq + Richmond = 2 hof'ers on the team

If you want to count Richmond's 4 minutes of playing time in the postseason be my guest. 6 HOFers for 5 titles remains unmatched.

(Shaq + Shaq + Shaq + Gasol + Gasol + Richmond) /6 = Average HOFer

[T_L_P]

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 HOFer per title team and 2 with a player who is only a HOFer due to his play outside the NBA.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings with just 1 All Star teammate per title team.

Kobe Bryant won 5 rings without an all league first team defensive teammate.

"STACKED"

:oldlol:

Shaq was better than Kobe for 8 years though. How is that the same as Jordan playing with Pippen or Hakeem playing with Clyde, who were clearly inferior?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Shaq was better than Kobe for 8 years though. How is that the same as Jordan playing with Pippen or Hakeem playing with Clyde, who were clearly inferior?

Because the NBA isn't a 2 on 2 sport.

Are you going to tell me Jordan's Olympic Dream Team wasn't stacked because he was he best player on that team too?

[T_L_P]

Because the NBA isn't a 2 on 2 sport.

Are you going to tell me Jordan's Olympic Dream Team wasn't stacked because he was he best player on that team too?

No, but what I will say is the '01 Lakers (2 HoFers) was way more stacked than the '03 Spurs, who had 4 HoFers.

This list doesn't at all take into account whether players were actually playing like Hall of Famers. Parish listed with the Bulls, Richmond with the Lakers, Robinson on the '03 Spurs is all a joke.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No, but what I will say is the '01 Lakers (2 HoFers) was way more stacked than the '03 Spurs, who had 4 HoFers.

This list doesn't at all take into account whether players were actually playing like Hall of Famers. Parish listed with the Bulls, Richmond with the Lakers, Robinson on the '03 Spurs is all a joke.

So use current year all stars then...