AD is shedding light on Kareem's career & ranking, imo (new all-time rankings inside)

[QUOTE=3ball]indeed, the main gist of this thread is that AD has shed light on Kareem's game because they both needed goat PG's to have a great team (or even a [I]good[/I] team).. so the goat PG's and bird-[u]feeders[/u] like Magic and Lebron should be ahead of bird-[U]fed[/U] bigs like Kareem and Russell

And this means that guys like Duncan gets bumped up a few spots, since he could legitimately carry his own team and wasn't bird-fed..

Ultimately, 2-way assassins/versatile scorers are the 1st tier... goat physical bigs are 2nd tier (wilt, shaq)… Duncan is in his own 3rd tier ahead of the 4th tier (goat pgs, aka magic/lebron) and 5th tier (bird-fed bigs, aka kareem/russell)

the adjusted rankings are above (post #24) - other people's rankings will differ of course, but the gist of the thread was that AD has shed light on other bigs that needed goat PG's to have even a good team, let alone great team.[/QUOTE]

I disagree mainly because you put Kobe in that first tier and there just isn't any evidence...that him over Lebron/Duncan/Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Magic/Hakeem...let alone other guys like KG/Dirk/Curry/Wade/West...is going to win more with similar help.

You are like a person that thinks something made in the image of something gives it inherent value. A nearly perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is worth a tiny fraction of the original.

Just because Kobe played like MJ...doesn't make him MJ.

He was absolutely great, no doubt, but he's not in that elite of the elite top group all-time. He's a fringe top 10 player.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.]LOL

that's interesting. I'm definitely willing to accept hard evidence, but it looks as though you just have some anecdotes that may or may not have validity behind them. Screenshots, man!

[B]Also, even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't necessarily prove that 3ball isn't being genuine. If anything it moreso proves he has schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Which we all sort of already expect in the 1st place.. lol[/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe so. That bolded paragraph is entirely possible.

I didn't save the Kobe comment... it's long since gone.

I don't know if kblaze saying he's an alt is gone but it's too much to dig through for me to care.

I didn't make it up. Oh well... maybe one day the facts will come out.

I agree with the premise that the great bigs generally need a great guard, but it isn't because they need to be "bird-fed". It's because they aren't great at getting the other guys on the team easy shots. One guy scoring at will isn't enough to win consistently in the playoffs (see MJ '86). You need a system, elite guard or even better both to have that kind of success.

Once you have something in place to get other guys scoring, then that elite big man can have playoff success.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree mainly because you put Kobe in that first tier and there just isn't any evidence...that him over Lebron/Duncan/Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Magic/Hakeem...let alone other guys like KG/Dirk/Curry/Wade...is going to win more with similar help.

You are like a person that thinks something made in the image of something gives it inherent value. A nearly perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is worth a tiny fraction of the original.

Just because Kobe played like MJ...doesn't make him MJ.

He was absolutely great, no doubt, but he's not in that elite of the elite top group all-time. He's a fringe top 10 player.[/QUOTE]
He's trying to get around math

He knows the closest player to MJ is Kobe, but Kobe is fringe top 15. Saying Kobe plays like Jordan is the same as saying [I]Jordan plays like Kobe [/I]. If he pretends that Kobe is better than he actually was, it elevates Jordan ('because even poor mans Jordan is top 5! See guys, I'm right after all!')


Obviously this is all nonsense and delusion, but you see his weak tactics in real time. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree mainly because you put Kobe in that first tier and there just isn't any evidence...that him over Lebron/Duncan/Shaq/Kareem/Russell/Magic/Hakeem...let alone other guys like KG/Dirk/Curry/Wade...is going to win more with similar help.

You are like a person that thinks something made in the image of something gives it inherent value. A nearly perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is worth a tiny fraction of the original.

Just because Kobe played like MJ...doesn't make him MJ.

He was absolutely great, no doubt, but he's not in that elite of the elite top group all-time. He's a fringe top 10 player.[/QUOTE]
you might be right and I like your mona lisa analogy

I am biased towards kobe and always will be..

but you might be wrong and the historical record might agree.. he [I]did[/I] get it done once he got a bosh-level player... his all-round skills and scoring versatility [I]do[/I] translate to any format of the game, like international play where he excelled and proved superior when our country's pride was on the line.. also, he and mj are the only guys to win multiple rings with a lone all-star teammate..

so there is some historical evidence that he's a guy who wins automatically once he has a minimal level of help, like MJ did.. like, he got bosh (i mean pau) and it was automatic - we all knew he would win and that's all he needed to win.. whereas lebron gets multiple young studs and it's [B]still a question mark[/B] whether he'll win and whether he needs more help - he's perennial underdog in a spot where kobe was perennial favorite.. that makes kobe better, and it's due to kobe's skills that he can win more with less - Lebron's limited scoring/attacking versatility marginalizes teammates, which makes him a worse player - again, its a SKILL thing

I don't really agree with Kobe as 3, but that's a argument for a different day. As far as Magic and Kareem not both being in the top five, I would make this analogy. If Bird had gone to the Laker and Magic to the Celtics, I think Kareem would have even more rings. I also think the lakers in 1980 would have set a all time rs win total with Bird. So if that had happened would you say Bird and Kareem couldn't be in the top five.

[QUOTE=3ball]you might be right and I like your mona lisa analogy

I am biased towards kobe and always will be..

but you might be wrong and the historical record might agree.. he [I]did[/I] get it done once he got a bosh-level player... his all-round skills and scoring versatility [I]do[/I] translate to any format of the game, like international play where he excelled and proved superior when our country's pride was on the line.. also, he and mj are the only guys to win multiple rings with a lone all-star teammate..

so there is some historical evidence that he's a guy who wins automatically once he has a minimal level of help, like MJ did.. like, he got bosh (i mean pau) and it was automatic - we all knew he would win and that's all he needed to win.. whereas lebron gets multiple young studs and it's still a question mark whether he'll win and whether he needs more help - he's perennial underdog in a spot where kobe was perennial favorite.. that makes kobe better, and it's due to kobe's skills that he can win more with less - Lebron's limited scoring/attacking versatility style marginalizes teammates, which makes him a worse player - again, its a SKILL thing[/QUOTE]

I think context really matters though for championships.

Look at your point comparing Lebron and Kobe. For starters, Lebron is much later in his career with considerably more mileage...but even ignoring that. The competition is likely to be way better this year than in 09.

Look at the kind of teams the best players had that year. There is absolutely no team that will even touch what the Clippers will be if healthy.

You have to talk about it all...not just titles won...but actually the impact of said players.

It is similar to giving Lebron full credit for making 8 straight finals. Of course we shouldn't, his competition in the East was a ****ing joke during that time. Doesn't make him a worse player or something, and doing that was still impressive...just like Kobe winning as much as he did was impressive, but we have to use context.

Of course it is all ultimately subjective, but I think we have enough information to say nothing was "automatic" about Kobe beating the likes of Dirk/Wade/Lebron/KG/Duncan in that era if they had equal help and coaching.

Like, just for fun, imagine Kobe not playing with Shaq...and instead playing with KG's help or somebody like that...but Dirk/Shaq or Dirk/KG were on the same team. He isn't winning shit. Does that make him a worse player? I'd agrue no...and if we argue no...then I think more nuance is needed on this stuff.

[QUOTE=colts19]

As far as Magic and Kareem not both being in the top five, [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]I would make this analogy[/COLOR][/B]. If Bird had gone to the Laker and Magic to the Celtics, I think Kareem would have even more rings. I also think the lakers in 1980 would have set a all time rs win total with Bird. So if that had happened would you say Bird and Kareem couldn't be in the top five.

[/QUOTE]
I basically agree with you, but using your logic, it makes sense to say that 5 rings with kareem = not top 5, but the 7 or 8 rings that Bird would've won = top 5

and in theory, kareem should still be out of the top 5 if bird got him more rings..


[QUOTE=colts19]

I don't really agree with Kobe as 3, but that's a argument for a different day.

[/QUOTE]
I am biased towards kobe and always will be..

but you might be wrong and the historical record might agree.. he [I]did[/I] get it done once he got a bosh-level player... his all-round skills and scoring versatility [I]do[/I] translate to any format of the game, like international play where he excelled and proved superior when our country's pride was on the line.. also, he and mj are the only guys to win multiple rings with a lone all-star teammate..

so there is some historical evidence that he's a guy who wins automatically once he has a minimal level of help, like MJ did.. like, he got bosh (i mean pau) and it was automatic - we all knew he would win and that's all he needed to win.. whereas lebron gets multiple young studs and [B]it's still a question mark[/B] whether he'll win and whether he needs more help - he's perennial underdog in a spot where kobe was perennial favorite.. that makes kobe better, and it's due to kobe's skills that he can win more with less - Lebron's limited scoring/attacking versatility marginalizes teammates, which makes him a worse player - again, its a SKILL thing

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think context really matters though for championships.

Look at your point comparing Lebron and Kobe. For starters, Lebron is much later in his career with considerably more mileage...but even ignoring that. The competition is likely to be way better this year than in 09.

Look at the kind of teams the best players had that year. There is absolutely no team that will even touch what the Clippers will be if healthy.

You have to talk about it all...not just titles won...but actually the impact of said players.

It is similar to giving Lebron full credit for making 8 straight finals. Of course we shouldn't, his competition in the East was a ****ing joke during that time. Doesn't make him a worse player or something, and doing that was still impressive...just like Kobe winning as much as he did was impressive, but we have to use context.

Of course it is all ultimately subjective, but I think we have enough information to say nothing was "automatic" about Kobe beating the likes of Dirk/Wade/Lebron/KG/Duncan in that era if they had equal help and coaching.

Like, just for fun, imagine Kobe not playing with Shaq...and instead playing with KG's help or somebody like that...but Dirk/Shaq or Dirk/KG were on the same team. He isn't winning shit. Does that make him a worse player? I'd agrue no...and if we argue no...then I think more nuance is needed on this stuff.[/QUOTE]
Context is not fantasy, put context on magic, bird and kareem's career compared to kobe's.

[QUOTE=LAL]Context is not fantasy, put context on magic, bird and kareem's career compared to kobe's.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean?

This would be a point if I thought Magic or Kareem or Bird was better than Kobe based merely on how many titles they won or team success.

Which I don't...and is the exact thing I'm arguing against.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]What do you mean?

This would be a point if I thought Magic or Kareem or Bird was better than Kobe based merely on how many titles they won or team success.

Which I don't...and is the exact thing I'm arguing against.[/QUOTE]
So context only matters for championships but not statistics? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=STATUTORY]So context only matters for championships but not statistics? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I think it matters for everything actually.

Not sure where you'd get any other idea.

I'm just not stupid enough to pretend like the level of play Dirk/Lebron/Wade lost with in 09 was somehow wosre than what Kobe won with. We can argue a bit around the edges...but we all know what the big difference was that year...

It was team strength.

Which is why I think Backpicks has it right in terms of the starting place. I think an unbiased/data driven analysis of the best careers should be where we start...and then start debating based on all the other stuff guys have proven.

For example, I think he over-rates KG for the reasons you seem to be getting at.

But, it seems like it always goes in the direction of "empty stats"..."nothing matters without a title"...and that is far more flawed than an objective analysis in my view.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]

For starters, Lebron is much later in his career with considerably more mileage...

but even ignoring that. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]The competition is likely to be way better this year than in 09.[/COLOR][/B]

[/quote]
Except it isn't just this year - Lebron was the underdog or lost for 3 of 4 years alongside Wade/Bosh... Ditto his years alongside Kyrie/Love - overall, he had superteams from 11-17' but was the underdog or lost every year except 1 - that's 6 of 7 years as the loser or underdog

Kobe would do FAR better than that and already did with just Bosh.

So regardless of how much you don't like kobe's stats, the historical record doesn't back up the idea that Lebron was better for winning than Kobe - he's almost always a loser or underdog regardless of cast, and that continues this year (people saying he's an underdog to the clippers despite having the best 2nd option in the league and various all-defenders, scorers, and veteran creators as his supporting cast)


[QUOTE=DMAVS41]

Look at the kind of teams the best players had that year. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]There is absolutely no team that will even touch what the Clippers will be if healthy.[/COLOR][/B]

[/QUOTE]
There's no team that touches the Lakers' cast either - Vegas put the lakers as favorites the instant they got AD [I]for a reason[/I] - he's much better than PG13

And that's the problem with Lebron fans - they always complain about the comp without realizing that Lebron has a great cast too that should win if Lebron is the best..

i.e. they complain about the Spurs being too good, when Lebron's Heat had the most talent in the league.. This continued in Cleveland, when the 2015 Cavs were the pre-season and pre-playoffs favorite to win the ring - yes, we know they got hurt that year - but their favorite status before the injuries shows that they could've been favorites again in 2016.. They simply became underdogs in 2016 because they had a 2nd underwhelming 50-something win season, while Curry was winning 70


[QUOTE=DMAVS41]

Of course it is all ultimately subjective, but I think we have enough information to say [B][COLOR="Blue"]nothing was "automatic" about Kobe beating the likes of Dirk/Wade/Lebron/KG/Duncan[/COLOR][/B] in that era if they had equal help and coaching.

[/QUOTE]
Kobe beat Duncan in 2008 with 30 ppg on 50%, and that was after Lebron had just gotten swept with 22 on 36% in 2007.

And KG had better help than Kobe in 2010, yet Kobe beat him by attracting a double-team and hitting Artest.

So it seems like you're the one biased here against Kobe, and not looking at the facts.


[QUOTE=DMAVS41]

You have to talk about it all...not just titles won...[B]but actually the [COLOR="DarkRed"]impact[/COLOR] of said players.[/B]

[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm doing, while you aren't..

You're ignoring the facts and blindly saying Lebron has more impact, even though the historical record shows that Kobe's teams were automatic favorites with decent help, while Lebron is perennial underdogs with even [I]more[/I] help.

Kobe's superior scoring/attacking versatility fit with any teammates or system, which enabled higher ceilings (perennial favorites), while Lebron's limited skills/scoring versatility doesn't fit or get the best out of teams.. so kobe's superior skillset makes him the better basketball player..

So I stand by my rankings.. you did not convince me, and infact made me examine the historical record closer, which only reinforced my arguments for kobe.. you're simply ignoring the facts and going along with the standard group-think about lebron, while I look at what actually happened (perennial favorites versus perennial underdogs despite similar or less help, aka greater impact for kobe)

I really don't agree with any of what you say on the topic.

Lebron has had really good teams, to varying degrees, from 11 through this year. Completely agree. The problem for you is that you make it sound like he hasn't done anything in that time. He's won 3 titles and made the finals 8 times or whatever it is now. In some of those finals...he was absolutely drawing dead to win it.

Yes, 11 he was terrible...but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.

Again, context matters. Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him. You know this...I know this...we all know this...be consistent.

Why pick 2010 to compare to KG and 2008 when Kobe had a terrible finals and lost to KG's team?

KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good. Duncan beat Kobe/Shaq. Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.

Again, nothing supports you here.

No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.

Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.

And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I really don't agree with any of what you say on the topic.

Lebron has had really good teams, to varying degrees, from 11 through this year. Completely agree. The problem for you is that you make it sound like he hasn't done anything in that time. He's won 3 titles and made the finals 8 times or whatever it is now. In some of those finals...he was absolutely drawing dead to win it.

Yes, 11 he was terrible...but Kobe was equally terrible in 04...and actually won a title in 00 playing even worse.

Again, context matters. Kobe played with Shaq 8 years...they won 3 titles. If Lebron did this you would be absolutely killing him. You know this...I know this...we all know this...be consistent.

Why pick 2010 to compare to KG and 2008 when Kobe had a terrible finals and lost to KG's team?

KG had started his decline by 2010 and the Celtics were absolutely not as good. Duncan beat Kobe/Shaq. Dirk murked Kobe with way less help on your standards in 2011.

Again, nothing supports you here.

No, you aren't...you are assuming Kobe was better than he was because of your obsession with MJ and inability to think beyond the circumstances of certain players...all while glossing over all the real issues of Kobe's career and focusing mainly on the negatives of others.

Again, this is why a more unbaised view of Kobe has him as a fringe top-10 player. RealGM had him him at 11th last time I checked.

And that, based on his actual impact, is where he belongs...somewhere in that range...not in the range of the guys you put him at.[/QUOTE]
:applause: