Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[QUOTE=Callystarr]No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....[/QUOTE]

Barkley was better through 1991, 92 was an off year, he was better in 93, then Malone was better from 94 onwards. Your list shows the latter point to be the case, which is what some have been saying here. General consensus was that in the late 80's after Jordan/Magic/Bird, Barkley was right underneath them, basically a top 5 player. I have never heard of anyone calling Karl Malone a top 5 player during the late 80's. Peak Barkley is more dominant than any version of Karl Malone.

[QUOTE]Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
:roll: malone was easily better in the WCQF :roll:
[QUOTE]I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.[/QUOTE]
he did perform better, due to the jazz being successful and him being the best player.
[QUOTE]Not in your wildest dreams.[/QUOTE]
:roll: delusional
[QUOTE]A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency. [/QUOTE]
it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.
[QUOTE]Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.[/QUOTE]
2 different seasons. there are too many factors that come into play without pinpointing 1 18 game stretch. therefore we can only judge on facts, and that fact was that malone led the jazz to more victories in 1997.
[QUOTE]Because they were healthy.[/QUOTE]
excuses
[QUOTE]Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.[/QUOTE]
odom stepped up alot more than kobe in both years playoff losses.
[QUOTE]You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.[/QUOTE]
or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?
[QUOTE]Nope, just one wrong person ranking players.[/QUOTE]
oh, so now everybody ranked players the way i rank them except for you?
[QUOTE]The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.[/QUOTE]
making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.
[QUOTE]You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.
[/QUOTE]
the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something
[QUOTE]Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.

He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.[/QUOTE]
more watch the games arguments :cry:

who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.
[QUOTE]Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.[/QUOTE]
so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9 :roll:
[QUOTE]Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.[/QUOTE]
they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs. while every single one of his top teammates dropped off in production, lebron increased his. having such poor teammates lebron faced defenses that had 1 goal of stopping lebron and he was still able to lead that team far beyond any expectations that had been placed on it.
[QUOTE]His play was roughly what you'd expect.[/QUOTE]
i expected much, much more.
[QUOTE]Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.[/QUOTE]
that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.
[QUOTE]Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.[/QUOTE]
his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.
[QUOTE]Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.[/QUOTE]
playoff is the true test of a players ability
[QUOTE]You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.[/QUOTE]
:roll: more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.
[QUOTE]I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.[/QUOTE]
both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.
[QUOTE]Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.[/QUOTE]
:roll: you have it the wrong way around here in terms of who is handing ass to whom

[QUOTE=Shep]
it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.[/QUOTE]

Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.

Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.

[QUOTE]or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?[/QUOTE]

That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.

[QUOTE]making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.

The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.

Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.

[QUOTE]the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04.

[QUOTE]who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.[/QUOTE]

2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.

I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.

[QUOTE]so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9 :roll: [/QUOTE]

Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.

The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.

[QUOTE]they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs[/QUOTE]

The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? :roll: Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself.

Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.

And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.

[QUOTE]that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.

His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.

[QUOTE]his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.

[QUOTE]playoff is the true test of a players ability[/QUOTE]

Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.

[QUOTE]:roll: more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.[/QUOTE]

How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?

Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.

[QUOTE=Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]The first four or five years I was in the league, I was played basically one on one. There are 2 1/2 men on me all of the time now. One in back, one in front and a guard going for the ball. It's made it necessary for me to do other things."[/QUOTE]

That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.

His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.

In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.

[QUOTE]both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.[/QUOTE]

How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.

[QUOTE]Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.[/QUOTE]
lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.
[QUOTE]Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.[/QUOTE]
overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.
[QUOTE]That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.
[/QUOTE]
especially when bryant was out
[QUOTE]That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.[/QUOTE]
jamison stepped up his production in the absence of those players, it is a notable fact. and if daniels was producing like that he wouldn't be playing half those minutes, he would be starting on 90% of teams.
[QUOTE]The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.[/QUOTE]
the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.
[QUOTE]Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.
[/QUOTE]
lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.
[QUOTE]His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04. [/QUOTE]
'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.
[QUOTE]2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.[/QUOTE]
yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.
[QUOTE]I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.[/QUOTE]
i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.
[QUOTE]Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.[/QUOTE]
this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.
[QUOTE]The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.[/QUOTE]
the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams :roll: . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records :oldlol:
[QUOTE]The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself. [/QUOTE]
i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster
[QUOTE]Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.[/QUOTE]
he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.
[QUOTE]And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.[/QUOTE]
so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.

[QUOTE]at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again :oldlol:
[QUOTE]His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.[/QUOTE]
he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.
[QUOTE]Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.[/QUOTE]
well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs
[QUOTE]Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.[/QUOTE]
we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.
[QUOTE]How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?[/QUOTE]
because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971
[QUOTE]Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.[/QUOTE]
so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.
[QUOTE]His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.[/QUOTE]
excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.
[QUOTE]In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.[/QUOTE]
the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.
[QUOTE]How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.[/QUOTE]
what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? :roll: gtfo

[QUOTE=Shep]lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.[/QUOTE]

Ah, delusion at it's finest. The only thing you've done in this thread is make outrageous statements that can't be backed up by any reasonable arguments.

[QUOTE]overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you're just underrating Kobe as usual.

[QUOTE]the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Kidd being the best point guard in '07.

[QUOTE]lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.[/QUOTE]

Of course Lebron was their MVP, I'm just pointing out that there was a lot more to that Cleveland team than just the individuals on paper.

[QUOTE]'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.[/QUOTE]

He did have his best playoff series in '05, but unbelievable play throughout the '03 season makes it an easy choice. And he did nearly upset a very good Piston team with perhaps the worst supporting cast a star has had in the playoffs in the last 20 years or so. 2002 was a better season than 2001, but 2001 was a better playoff series.

[QUOTE]yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: No you can't. I watched him enough to assure you that 2003 is his peak, and it's not particularly close.

[QUOTE]i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.[/QUOTE]

12 is a bit high in '08, imo, but we're not that far off. I have him at 16.

[QUOTE]this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.[/QUOTE]

No, it's a real argument that comes from more than looking at basketball-reference. By the way +4.3 ppg and 2.8 TS% is a big difference for season averages.

And the difference between them as scorers that year in reality was at least as big as the statistical difference, if not bigger.

[QUOTE]the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams :roll: . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

What do you mean the Lakers never had a 7 game losing streak? Look at March 2nd to March 15th.

The Lakers were lucky to not be a losing team themselves with such limited talent and all of those injuries. You can thank number 24 for that.

[QUOTE]i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster[/QUOTE]

Well that is absolutely meaningless to me. There's so much more that goes into a team.

[QUOTE]he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but that's not really saying much. The other elite players didn't set the standard too high outside of Tim Duncan.

[QUOTE]so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at trying to make it seem more insignificant by the per quarter nonsense. With how much you rely on stats, you should know that's not how season averages work. +3.7 rpg is excellent rebounding. Go check other teams to see.

Even Lebron in a subpar year obviously deserves a lot of credit for that success, but so is their defense and rebounding as well as the competition.

Lebron has no argument for being ranked any higher than 3rd that season, and even that's pushing it.

[QUOTE=Shep]:oldlol: more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at comparing Kobe's success as a 2nd option to his success as a first option. Kobe scored 0.2 ppg LESS in '08 than '01, and just 0.7 ppg more in the playoffs, so this obviously isn't what I'm basing my decisions on.

Of course you only point out the ppg when it's convenient for you. Nice attempt to discredit my argument, but you overlooked that I consider '08 to be arguably Kobe's best season.

I shouldn't even have to explain to you why comparing Kobe's team success in '01 when he played with the best player in the league to '06 and '07 is idiotic.

In '08, Kobe LED his team to the finals. He not only matched his all around game from the '01 playoffs, but he now had a more diverse scoring skill set in addition to it, and he maintained it for an entire season, not just a playoff run.

[QUOTE]he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Of course I've seen them. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Shaq fan. I used to watch him play whenever I got a chance.

Kobe's 2001 playoffs were up there with his best playoff runs, but he was simply not at his absolute best as a player yet. He also had great playoff runs in '08, '09 and '10. And in '06 and '07, he simply didn't have the same opportunity to match those playoff runs.

[QUOTE]well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs[/QUOTE]

Doesn't make much sense considering Kareem was years away from his peak.

[QUOTE]we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and it's not enough for me to label him a poor foul shooter. I'll look at the much bigger sample size, the 76 games he played in the regular season to judge his free throw shooting.

[QUOTE]because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971[/QUOTE]

It didn't help him win more because he didn't have a team remotely comparable to the '71 Bucks in '77. Are you going to deny his team was MUCH worse in '77 than '71? The difference is night and day.

It's predictable, you'll start with your "excuses" garbage. You do it every time you're exposed for not applying context. And you'll dodge the question about Kareem's supporting cast in '77 vs '71. But hey, I don't expect anything less, it's your trademark.

What's the point in even ranking players if you don't use anything you learn from watching games to rank them?

[QUOTE]so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.[/QUOTE]

Shut down when? '77? No, however, he was able to be contained much more in the early 70's with Milwaukee.

[QUOTE]excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.[/QUOTE]

I'm stating facts, and applying context because I know basketball isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. If you're going to compare team success, you have to keep in mind their teams. And when rating players you should look at how the players performed to get the result, not just the result because there are other players and teams to influence the result, but the player's performance speaks for itself. Now these things are subjective, but basketball is subjective.

[QUOTE]the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.[/QUOTE]

First of all, Russell was the greatest player of all-time at that point, and more importantly, Wilt was 34 and had the knee surgery the year before. He remained great until he retired, but it wasn't the Wilt Chamberlain of the mid/late 60's, and his team was just overmatched. But he did by all accounts play Kareem to a standstill in the series.

And if you knew your NBA history, you'd know that Willis Reed was injured in the '71 playoffs. I've read a lot about the golden age of the Knicks and this is considered a major factor.

[QUOTE]what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? :roll: gtfo[/QUOTE]

Coming from the biggest stat whore on this site. A man whose basketball knowledge consists solely of what he's read on basketball-reference.

Lebron's 07 Finals team was the least talented in NBA history.

[QUOTE=Shep]the laker never had a 7 game losing streak.[/QUOTE]


March 2(116-108 to the Kings)
March 4(99-94 to the Suns)
March 6(117-107 to the T-Wolves in 2 OT)
March 7(110-90 to the Bucks)
March 9(108-92 to the 76ers)
March 11(108-72 to the Mavs)
March 15(113-86 to the Nuggets)


And just before that, they had a 6 game losing streak. They were 30-19 before a 6 game losing streak, a 3 game win streak(Boston, Golden State, and Utah), and a 7 game losing streak. They lost 13 out of 16 at that point. They went from fighting for home court in the first round to needing to win both their final 2 games to be the 7th seed and at least 1 win just to make the playoffs. Quite the drop off considering they were on a 50 win pace through 50 games.

[QUOTE=Dragonyeuw]Barkley was better through 1991, 92 was an off year, he was better in 93, then Malone was better from 94 onwards. Your list shows the latter point to be the case, which is what some have been saying here. General consensus was that in the late 80's after Jordan/Magic/Bird, Barkley was right underneath them, basically a top 5 player. I have never heard of anyone calling Karl Malone a top 5 player during the late 80's. Peak Barkley is more dominant than any version of Karl Malone.[/QUOTE]

[B]1995-96 Unwards Was When Malone was Better. The 1993-94 and 1994-95 Seasons Barkley was Still Better...See Play-Offs PER.

Malone Rarely Shot Over 50% FG in the Play-Offs "Only 3 Times Actually"

Barkley Was Called the 2nd Best Player in the League by Chuck Daily in 1992[/B].

pretty safe to say that barkley had a better peak but malone def had the better career. Duncan is better then either of them so it doesn't really matter fighting over 2nd lol (unless some peeps put KG or Dirk ahead of them too)

[B]Barkley from 1985 to 1995 was the Best PF. The Cream of All PFs

[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]Season Career[/U][/COLOR]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on [COLOR="blue"]12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg [/COLOR](Season)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on [COLOR="red"]17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG [/COLOR](Season)

[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs Career: "Malone Shot Over 50% For Only 3 Play-Off Runs":[/COLOR][/U]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG [/COLOR](Play-Offs)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on [COLOR="red"]19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG[/COLOR] (Play-Offs)

Barkley was a Way Superior Scorer [/B]

[QUOTE]Ah, delusion at it's finest. The only thing you've done in this thread is make outrageous statements that can't be backed up by any reasonable arguments.[/QUOTE]
irony at its best right here ladies and gentlemen
[QUOTE]Nope, you're just underrating Kobe as usual.[/QUOTE]
i actually rate everyone correctly
[QUOTE]at Kidd being the best point guard in '07.[/QUOTE]
nash was close. nobody else was anywhere near.
[QUOTE]He did have his best playoff series in '05, but unbelievable play throughout the '03 season makes it an easy choice. And he did nearly upset a very good Piston team with perhaps the worst supporting cast a star has had in the playoffs in the last 20 years or so. 2002 was a better season than 2001, but 2001 was a better playoff series.[/QUOTE]
yes, his only better years than 2007 were 2005, 2003, and 2001
[QUOTE]No you can't. I watched him enough to assure you that 2003 is his peak, and it's not particularly close.[/QUOTE]
lol what is the argument here? points per game? :roll: he was better in 2005 in the regular season, and playoffs.
[QUOTE]No, it's a real argument that comes from more than looking at basketball-reference. By the way +4.3 ppg and 2.8 TS% is a big difference for season averages.

And the difference between them as scorers that year in reality was at least as big as the statistical difference, if not bigger.[/QUOTE]
bryant got his in a uptempo, top 6 paced team, while lebron's cavs were in the bottom half in the league in pace. pretty much all he did was get up more shots.
[QUOTE]What do you mean the Lakers never had a 7 game losing streak? Look at March 2nd to March 15th.[/QUOTE]
i'm sorry i was just going by memory, where are you getting this information?
[QUOTE]The Lakers were lucky to not be a losing team themselves with such limited talent and all of those injuries. You can thank number 24 for that.[/QUOTE]
:roll: trash rebuttal
[QUOTE]Well that is absolutely meaningless to me. There's so much more that goes into a team.[/QUOTE]
how convenient it is for that to be meaningless to you.
[QUOTE]Maybe, but that's not really saying much. The other elite players didn't set the standard too high outside of Tim Duncan.[/QUOTE]
more convenient statements :roll: . being the second most impressive playoff performer in a particular year is absolutely an achievement, especially for a young man just 22 years old.
[QUOTE]at trying to make it seem more insignificant by the per quarter nonsense. With how much you rely on stats, you should know that's not how season averages work. +3.7 rpg is excellent rebounding. Go check other teams to see.

Even Lebron in a subpar year obviously deserves a lot of credit for that success, but so is their defense and rebounding as well as the competition.

Lebron has no argument for being ranked any higher than 3rd that season, and even that's pushing it.[/QUOTE]
more filth :banghead: lebron was a huge part of that defense and rebounding. that team relied much more on 1 man than maybe any team in the history of the nba. besides, they may as well learn how to rebound when lebron was doing everything else imaginable.
[QUOTE]at comparing Kobe's success as a 2nd option to his success as a first option. Kobe scored 0.2 ppg LESS in '08 than '01, and just 0.7 ppg more in the playoffs, so this obviously isn't what I'm basing my decisions on.[/QUOTE]
where are you getting this information
[QUOTE]Of course you only point out the ppg when it's convenient for you. Nice attempt to discredit my argument, but you overlooked that I consider '08 to be arguably Kobe's best season.[/QUOTE]
i have no idea why you would rank '08 as his best season when the very next year he is quite clearly better.
[QUOTE]I shouldn't even have to explain to you why comparing Kobe's team success in '01 when he played with the best player in the league to '06 and '07 is idiotic.[/QUOTE]
yeh he played with the best player in the league. so what? kobe was the secod best player in the league. playing with such a player who commands the ball like shaq did is expected to cause your production to fall off significantly. kobe's production did not drop off at all, and if you have seen the '01 playoffs you will understand why it is his peak, as he stepped up more than anyone else in the playoffs that year, including shaq in his second most peak season.
[QUOTE]In '08, Kobe LED his team to the finals. He not only matched his all around game from the '01 playoffs, but he now had a more diverse scoring skill set in addition to it, and he maintained it for an entire season, not just a playoff run.[/QUOTE]
he had a nice regular season, but once again, the playoffs is where the difference is. if i was you i would do my best to pick up some footage of that 2001 playoff run.
[QUOTE]Kobe's 2001 playoffs were up there with his best playoff runs, but he was simply not at his absolute best as a player yet. He also had great playoff runs in '08, '09 and '10. And in '06 and '07, he simply didn't have the same opportunity to match those playoff runs.[/QUOTE]
ofcourse he had great playoff runs, but unfortunately, they are nowhere near his 2001 run.
[QUOTE]Doesn't make much sense considering Kareem was years away from his peak.[/QUOTE]
how is 1971 years away from 1971?
[QUOTE]Yes, and it's not enough for me to label him a poor foul shooter. I'll look at the much bigger sample size, the 76 games he played in the regular season to judge his free throw shooting.[/QUOTE]
ok you can look at meaningless regular season games, i will look at important playoff games.
[QUOTE]It didn't help him win more because he didn't have a team remotely comparable to the '71 Bucks in '77. Are you going to deny his team was MUCH worse in '77 than '71? The difference is night and day.[/QUOTE]
yes his team was better in 1971. but at the end of the day you play to win, kareem won a championship in '71, and he did not win a championship in '77 these are the cold hard truths.

the man won multiple championships and you want his peak to be remembered as one where he barely gets by the much inferior golden state warriors before getting swept out of the playoffs by bill walton? :hammerhead:
[QUOTE]It's predictable, you'll start with your "excuses" garbage. You do it every time you're exposed for not applying context. And you'll dodge the question about Kareem's supporting cast in '77 vs '71. But hey, I don't expect anything less, it's your trademark.

What's the point in even ranking players if you don't use anything you learn from watching games to rank them? [/QUOTE]
i definately use things like supporting casts when rank players. but it doesn't hold alot of ground. things like winning games of basketball holds more ground than going on about if this guy had those guys then they would be winning this amount. its trash.
[QUOTE]Shut down when? '77? No, however, he was able to be contained much more in the early 70's with Milwaukee.[/QUOTE]
i'm sorry, how successful was the 1977 los angeles lakers?
[QUOTE]I'm stating facts, and applying context because I know basketball isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. If you're going to compare team success, you have to keep in mind their teams. And when rating players you should look at how the players performed to get the result, not just the result because there are other players and teams to influence the result, but the player's performance speaks for itself. Now these things are subjective, but basketball is subjective.[/QUOTE]
you can only use context to a certain extent. players play games to be successful, and to win championships, which is why championships are a big factor in determining who is best because whoever wants it more will more than likely determine the great players from the legends.
[QUOTE]First of all, Russell was the greatest player of all-time at that point, and more importantly, Wilt was 34 and had the knee surgery the year before. He remained great until he retired, but it wasn't the Wilt Chamberlain of the mid/late 60's, and his team was just overmatched. But he did by all accounts play Kareem to a standstill in the series.[/QUOTE]
russell was the second best player of all tim at that point. chamberlain was the greatest. chamberlain was still a top 4 player in the league, and goodrich was a top 2 shooting guard who had an outstanding playoff
[QUOTE]And if you knew your NBA history, you'd know that Willis Reed was injured in the '71 playoffs. I've read a lot about the golden age of the Knicks and this is considered a major factor.[/QUOTE]
if you knew your history the new york knicks boasted 4 future hall of famers, were the defending champions, and were the best team in the eastern conference during the regular season. reed played fine, as did frazier and bradley, and the knicks had the bonus of having huge playoffs from dick barnett, and dave debusschere.
[QUOTE]Coming from the biggest stat whore on this site. A man whose basketball knowledge consists solely of what he's read on basketball-reference.[/QUOTE]
:roll: coming from a man who only ranks players after he has checked the daily ppg leaders on nba.com

[QUOTE=Shep]
nash was close. nobody else was anywhere near.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least we're getting somewhere now, however, there's still a long way to go because the correct answer would be Nash was clearly better and both Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis were also better than Kidd in '07.

[QUOTE]yes, his only better years than 2007 were 2005, 2003, and 2001[/QUOTE]

All that's missing is 2002 and 2004.

[QUOTE]lol what is the argument here? points per game? :roll: he was better in 2005 in the regular season, and playoffs.[/QUOTE]

He had a better playoff series in 2005, I'll give you that. But what's the argument against 2003? He was at his most dominant individually for a season, his most efficient, his most consistent and considering his pathetic roster, his team overachieved the most. Has a star ever gotten a worse team into the playoffs? If so, it's probably not been within the last 20 years. It seemed like T-Mac was having unbelievable games every night.

What didn't he have in his game then? He was in a bit more of a playmaker role in Houston, but he still had to do that and did it quite well in Orlando.

[QUOTE]bryant got his in a uptempo, top 6 paced team, while lebron's cavs were in the bottom half in the league in pace. pretty much all he did was get up more shots.[/QUOTE]

His skill set allowed him to get more shots since he could create them in so many ways from so many spots. As I mentioned, Lebron didn't have the mid-range game or post game and he was a poor 3 point shooter. He also wasn't crafty with Kobe so you wouldn't see him create something out of nowhere with fakes.

Kobe wasn't even trying to score for most of the year and still averaged 32.

Pace is less relevant to me than ball-dominance. Kobe played in the triangle offense, while Lebron was in an extremely ball-dominant role.

[QUOTE]i'm sorry i was just going by memory, where are you getting this information?[/QUOTE]

ESPN, basketball-reference, yahoo. Take your pick.

[QUOTE]more filth :banghead: lebron was a huge part of that defense and rebounding. that team relied much more on 1 man than maybe any team in the history of the nba. besides, they may as well learn how to rebound when lebron was doing everything else imaginable.[/QUOTE]

Lebron was an average defender in '07. He wasn't why they were a great defensive team. His rebounding was fine too, but also not why they excelled in that area. His team complemented him well.

[QUOTE]where are you getting this information[/QUOTE]

It's not hard to look up how much Kobe scored in '08 and'01.

[QUOTE]i have no idea why you would rank '08 as his best season when the very next year he is quite clearly better.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: He was clearly not as good in '09. His defense wasn't as consistent as '08, though he stepped up his defense in the playoffs. He was more impressive as a facilitator, he was more athletic and explosive, he attacked the basket more and the Laker leaned on him to carry him more.

[QUOTE]yeh he played with the best player in the league. so what? kobe was the secod best player in the league. playing with such a player who commands the ball like shaq did is expected to cause your production to fall off significantly. kobe's production did not drop off at all, and if you have seen the '01 playoffs you will understand why it is his peak, as he stepped up more than anyone else in the playoffs that year, including shaq in his second most peak season.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't necessarily mean you're production will fall off because the Lakers did not have a 3rd scoring option. Fisher was essentially a catch and shoot guy and a role player, Fox was also a role player.

But you did get Shaq's 2nd best season correct.

[QUOTE]he had a nice regular season, but once again, the playoffs is where the difference is. if i was you i would do my best to pick up some footage of that 2001 playoff run.[/QUOTE]

I've seen the entire '01 playoffs. He was great, I was impressed by how much he matured and he did an excellent job as a facilitator, while also making the most of being the 2nd option by picking his spots driving to the basket more and capitalizing on transition and semi-transition opportunities. I have nothing but positive things to say about Kobe's '01 playoff run.

But because I've seen Kobe in '01 and after, I know that he added more to his game. '08 is the best example of the all around play from the '01 playoffs except over an entire season, but with a more diverse skill set. You know for a fact that if Kobe has a finals equal to his '01 finals in the '08 finals he loses anyway. And Kobe's '08 finals would be good enough to win on his '01 team.

Not only that, but Kobe may have not even made the playoffs if he had his '01 regular season on the '08 team, but Kobe's '08 season on the '01 team is enough for them to easily top 60 wins.

By the way, I've uploaded some '01 playoff footage myself, so of course, I've seen it. The only reason I haven't uploaded more is because everything except games 2 and 3 of the Sacramento series have been uploaded.

[B]Game 2-[/B] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xfzc5YmMM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xfzc5YmMM[/URL]

[B]Game 3-[/B] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7wmI7thoJw&feature=relmfu"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7wmI7thoJw&feature=relmfu[/URL]

[QUOTE]ofcourse he had great playoff runs, but unfortunately, they are nowhere near his 2001 run.[/QUOTE]

'09 was his most consistent run, '08 had the most great series(first 3) and '10 was like '01 in that he had 2 great series.

[QUOTE]yes his team was better in 1971. but at the end of the day you play to win, kareem won a championship in '71, and he did not win a championship in '77 these are the cold hard truths.[/QUOTE]

Kareem did everything a reasonable person could expect him to do in '77. I respect champions, but Kareem played like a champion. I respect the fact that he had a great regular season that elevated his team to the best record, lost 2 of his 3 best players and then raised his game some more in the playoffs.

[QUOTE]the man won multiple championships and you want his peak to be remembered as one where he barely gets by the much inferior golden state warriors before getting swept out of the playoffs by bill walton? :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]
'
Yes because the man did win multiple championships. Before and after this proving he was a champion, but a champion on a bad team while his individual game peaked and he was the one player playing like a champion on the '77 even though there wasn't much of a point in doing so.

The Golden State series was memorable. Game 6 is available, go check it out. He had 43 points, 20 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks in an elimination game. Part of game 7 is also available, and in that game he had 36 points and 26 rebounds.

[QUOTE]i definately use things like supporting casts when rank players. but it doesn't hold alot of ground. things like winning games of basketball holds more ground than going on about if this guy had those guys then they would be winning this amount. its trash.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it's tough to guess what a player would do with certain supporting casts, and it's subjective, but that's why I look at the player's performance. Sometimes things are out of a player's control, which is why you can't even just look at the cast on paper, but how they performed in the series the team lost.

I agree that championships are the primary goal and the one thing you should play for, but it's not unheard of for a player to be the best in the league and not be fortunate enough to be in a good position for a championship. We've both ranked Jordan and Lebron as the best in the league when he wasn't on a championship team, as well as other players that we'd both agree on.

[QUOTE]i'm sorry, how successful was the 1977 los angeles lakers?[/QUOTE]

Quite successful for essentially a 1 man team. Best record in the NBA and a Western Conference Finals Appearance

[QUOTE]you can only use context to a certain extent. players play games to be successful, and to win championships, which is why championships are a big factor in determining who is best because whoever wants it more will more than likely determine the great players from the legends.[/QUOTE]

I think context must always be included no matter what. Even when a player is the best on a championship such as Isiah in '89 and '90, he still wasn't up there with Magic or Jordan.

[QUOTE]if you knew your history the new york knicks boasted 4 future hall of famers, were the defending champions, and were the best team in the eastern conference during the regular season. reed played fine, as did frazier and bradley, and the knicks had the bonus of having huge playoffs from dick barnett, and dave debusschere.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Knicks had a great team. DeBuscherre was one of the great forwards and Frazier one of the great guards, but having a limited Willis Reed definitely hurt them, and it was a reported fact that he had multiple injuries throughout the playoffs and his production clearly suffered compared to the regular season and his '70 season and playoffs.

[QUOTE]:roll: coming from a man who only ranks players after he has checked the daily ppg leaders on nba.com[/QUOTE]

Already proved how ridiculous this claim is. A man who ranks players after checking the scoring leaders would have ranked the scoring champ as the best player more than 3 times in the last 14 seasons. In fact, if your claim was true, it'd be 14 of the last 14 times.

One of the '82 Laker games I promised.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQInRryTUo&feature=plcp"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQInRryTUo&feature=plcp[/URL]

That's what I look at for ranking players.

[QUOTE]Well, at least we're getting somewhere now, however, there's still a long way to go because the correct answer would be Nash was clearly better and both Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis were also better than Kidd in '07.[/QUOTE]
lol we are getting close? nash was always close to kidd in '07, nothing has changed. the correct, and only answer is kidd is the best point guard in the league, nash was second, davis third, parker fourth, and arenas fifth.
[QUOTE]All that's missing is 2002 and 2004.[/QUOTE]
the reason they are missing is because he wasn't better in those years
[QUOTE]He had a better playoff series in 2005, I'll give you that. But what's the argument against 2003? He was at his most dominant individually for a season, his most efficient, his most consistent and considering his pathetic roster, his team overachieved the most. Has a star ever gotten a worse team into the playoffs? If so, it's probably not been within the last 20 years. It seemed like T-Mac was having unbelievable games every night.

What didn't he have in his game then? He was in a bit more of a playmaker role in Houston, but he still had to do that and did it quite well in Orlando.[/QUOTE]
the magic had a great bunch of role players that year. they were also one of the best long range bombers in the league and had a plethora of shooters in the league including pat garrity, mike miller, and darrell armstrong. they also had a great playoff from drew gooden who stepped much more than mcgrady. putting up empty stats on a team that is barely over .500 won't get you ranked with the best in the league. mcgrady was ranked 8th.
[QUOTE]His skill set allowed him to get more shots since he could create them in so many ways from so many spots. As I mentioned, Lebron didn't have the mid-range game or post game and he was a poor 3 point shooter. He also wasn't crafty with Kobe so you wouldn't see him create something out of nowhere with fakes.

Kobe wasn't even trying to score for most of the year and still averaged 32.

Pace is less relevant to me than ball-dominance. Kobe played in the triangle offense, while Lebron was in an extremely ball-dominant role.[/QUOTE]
allen iverson was also abe to create more shots than lebron :hammerhead:

being in a ball-dominant role is less relevant to me. the cavs needed the ball to be in lebron's hand to have the best chance to win games, so thats what happened.
[QUOTE]ESPN, basketball-reference, yahoo. Take your pick.[/QUOTE]
but which one did you use?
[QUOTE]Lebron was an average defender in '07. He wasn't why they were a great defensive team. His rebounding was fine too, but also not why they excelled in that area. His team complemented him well.[/QUOTE]
filth at its finest. lebron was top 2 at his position in terms of rebounds per game, and one of the best defenders at that spot too. his second best player from the regular season shot 35% in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]It's not hard to look up how much Kobe scored in '08 and'01.[/QUOTE]
i am very interested
[QUOTE]He was clearly not as good in '09. His defense wasn't as consistent as '08, though he stepped up his defense in the playoffs. He was more impressive as a facilitator, he was more athletic and explosive, he attacked the basket more and the Laker leaned on him to carry him more.[/QUOTE]
more impressive as a facilitator :roll: just say more apg you loser :facepalm

once again your argument seems to be stats, which is not surprising in the least. bryant took on a bigger role and led the lakers to 65 wins, and stepped up alot more in the playoffs. things that are important, not apg.
[QUOTE]It doesn't necessarily mean you're production will fall off because the Lakers did not have a 3rd scoring option. Fisher was essentially a catch and shoot guy and a role player, Fox was also a role player.

But you did get Shaq's 2nd best season correct.[/QUOTE]
more excuses. i get everything i say correct.
[QUOTE]I've seen the entire '01 playoffs. He was great, I was impressed by how much he matured and he did an excellent job as a facilitator, while also making the most of being the 2nd option by picking his spots driving to the basket more and capitalizing on transition and semi-transition opportunities. I have nothing but positive things to say about Kobe's '01 playoff run.

But because I've seen Kobe in '01 and after, I know that he added more to his game. '08 is the best example of the all around play from the '01 playoffs except over an entire season, but with a more diverse skill set. You know for a fact that if Kobe has a finals equal to his '01 finals in the '08 finals he loses anyway. And Kobe's '08 finals would be good enough to win on his '01 team.

Not only that, but Kobe may have not even made the playoffs if he had his '01 regular season on the '08 team, but Kobe's '08 season on the '01 team is enough for them to easily top 60 wins.

By the way, I've uploaded some '01 playoff footage myself, so of course, I've seen it. The only reason I haven't uploaded more is because everything except games 2 and 3 of the Sacramento series have been uploaded.[/QUOTE]
more hearsay bs. once again i deal with what actually happened, where as you like to dabble in things such as what ifs.
[QUOTE]'09 was his most consistent run, '08 had the most great series(first 3) and '10 was like '01 in that he had 2 great series.[/QUOTE]
bryant stepping up like he did was the main reason the lakers romped to a 15-1 win loss record. bryant was the most impressive playoff performer out of everyone who participated in the 2001 playoffs, including teammate shaquille o'neal in his second most peak season. no other playoff run came close.
[QUOTE]Kareem did everything a reasonable person could expect him to do in '77. I respect champions, but Kareem played like a champion. I respect the fact that he had a great regular season that elevated his team to the best record, lost 2 of his 3 best players and then raised his game some more in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
i respect that too, and i have him as the best player in the league in 1977, but unfortunately for your argument, champions hold alot of weight when official rankings take place, and kareem leading the bucks to the '71 championship (while losing only 2 games throughout the playoffs), after a 66-16 regular season is far too much to overcome.
[QUOTE]Yes because the man did win multiple championships. Before and after this proving he was a champion, but a champion on a bad team while his individual game peaked and he was the one player playing like a champion on the '77 even though there wasn't much of a point in doing so.

The Golden State series was memorable. Game 6 is available, go check it out. He had 43 points, 20 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks in an elimination game. Part of game 7 is also available, and in that game he had 36 points and 26 rebounds.[/QUOTE]
lol so he proved that he could win championships in the past so he gets a pass for getting swept out of the playoffs just because he puts up some points? :roll: . yes it was nice series vs golden state, good enough to contribute to being ranked as the best player in the league.
[QUOTE]I agree that it's tough to guess what a player would do with certain supporting casts, and it's subjective, but that's why I look at the player's performance. Sometimes things are out of a player's control, which is why you can't even just look at the cast on paper, but how they performed in the series the team lost.[/QUOTE]
player performance is very important. but if you struggle to lead your team anywhere in the playoffs, which is the true test of greatness, no matter what numbers you put up you will more than likely not be ranked as the best player in the league.
[QUOTE]I agree that championships are the primary goal and the one thing you should play for, but it's not unheard of for a player to be the best in the league and not be fortunate enough to be in a good position for a championship. We've both ranked Jordan and Lebron as the best in the league when he wasn't on a championship team, as well as other players that we'd both agree on.[/QUOTE]
definately. picking the best player on the championship team and naming him the best player is just silly.
[QUOTE]Quite successful for essentially a 1 man team. Best record in the NBA and a Western Conference Finals Appearance[/QUOTE]
but compared to the 1971 bucks, not very successful at all.
[QUOTE]I think context must always be included no matter what. Even when a player is the best on a championship such as Isiah in '89 and '90, he still wasn't up there with Magic or Jordan.[/QUOTE]
this is correct. but winning a championship elevated him to 4th overall in '89, and 6th in '90.
[QUOTE]Already proved how ridiculous this claim is. A man who ranks players after checking the scoring leaders would have ranked the scoring champ as the best player more than 3 times in the last 14 seasons. In fact, if your claim was true, it'd be 14 of the last 14 times.[/QUOTE]
i didn't say that that man ranked the scoring leaders as the best player, i just said he only ranked players after checking the leaders.
[QUOTE]One of the '82 Laker games I promised.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQInRryTUo&feature=plcp[/url]

That's what I look at for ranking players.[/QUOTE]
you look at youtube for ranking players?

ShaqAttack >>> Shep

The things Shep has said are obviously just trying to discredit Barkley. If I'm picking who had the highest peak, the player I'd build my team around for one season is Barkley, not Malone.

[QUOTE=Shep]lol we are getting close? nash was always close to kidd in '07, nothing has changed. the correct, and only answer is kidd is the best point guard in the league, nash was second, davis third, parker fourth, and arenas fifth.[/QUOTE]

Kidd and Baron were close. Nash was far ahead of every point guard. I was never a fan of Arenas, but he was a really good player back then.

[QUOTE]the magic had a great bunch of role players that year. they were also one of the best long range bombers in the league and had a plethora of shooters in the league including pat garrity, mike miller, and darrell armstrong. they also had a great playoff from drew gooden who stepped much more than mcgrady. putting up empty stats on a team that is barely over .500 won't get you ranked with the best in the league. mcgrady was ranked 8th.[/QUOTE]

He had Miller for the first half of the season, Orlando played their best ball after trading him.

They went 16-11 after the trade with a cast of Gordan Giricek, rookie Drew Gooden, Pat Garrity, 34 year old Darrell Armstrong and Shawn Kemp who gad given up blow in favor of an addiction to big macs and probably eaten half of his 2 dozen kids.

His cast was horrible, any perimeter player except for maybe prime Jordan would struggle to get them over .500. Doesn't matter if it was Kobe or Wade, the results would be no better.

But T-Mac's "empty" stats took that trash to a 7th game vs Detroit. This included a game where T-Mac scored 46 of Orlando's 77 points vs Detroit and he shot 62% while the rest of the team shot 26%. that's how bad that orlando team was. And that was right after his game 1 vs Detroit which remains one of my all-time favorite T-Mac games.

A big reason Orlando shot a good % on 3s is that T-Mac took most of them taking 6.5 per game, making an amazing 2.3 at a phenomenal 39%. Not to mention T-Mac's excellent playmaking which set Orlando's shooters up.

[QUOTE]allen iverson was also abe to create more shots than lebron :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

Anywhere near as efficiently as Kobe did? Besides, peak Iverson was a better scorer than '07 Lebron, arguably a better or at least comparable player.

[QUOTE]being in a ball-dominant role is less relevant to me. the cavs needed the ball to be in lebron's hand to have the best chance to win games, so thats what happened.[/QUOTE]

But it can still make stats misleading, despite this, Kobe's numbers were better than Lebron's and the Lakers offense was much better than Cleveland's offense.

[QUOTE]but which one did you use?[/QUOTE]

ESPN, I think, it came up first on a google search for Kobe Bryant. Why?

[QUOTE]filth at its finest. lebron was top 2 at his position in terms of rebounds per game, and one of the best defenders at that spot too. his second best player from the regular season shot 35% in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Lebron's rebounding was fine, but his numbers have often been misleading, look at how few offensive rebounds he's gotten. It'sonly been the past year or so that he's genuinely impressed me as a rebounder. 6.7 rpg for a SF playing 40 mpg is nothing special.

Lebron's defense was nothing special in '07. he wasn't a bad defender like his first 3 years, but he wasn't great year. Pretty average.

Lebron himself shot just 41.6% in those playoffs, so why are you bringing up %? Especially when lebron shot that same 35% in the finals with almost 6 TO per game.

[QUOTE]more impressive as a facilitator :roll: just say more apg you loser :facepalm[/QUOTE]

That's only a small part of how I judge playmaking. Assists like all stats, are circumstantial. Watching Kobe's game management, when to get his teammates involved, when to take over ect was the best I've seen him. Rivaled only by the '01 playoffs.

[QUOTE]once again your argument seems to be stats, which is not surprising in the least. bryant took on a bigger role and led the lakers to 65 wins, and stepped up alot more in the playoffs. things that are important, not apg.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: So now my argument is apg when he's topped his '08 apg numerous times? Kobe didn't take a bigger role in '09, he had an improved Pau Gasol for a full season rather than 26-27 games, he had Bynum for 50 games, instead of 35, and unlike '08, he played with Gasol and Ariza was there for the entire season.

The only advantage for his playoffs in '09 is the finals, but anyone with a brain can see that it's because the '08 celtics were clearly better than the '09 Magic and Kobe's '09 team was clearly better than his '08 team. Kobe had played better through his first 3 rounds in the '08 playoffs, he was truly unbelievable, achieving his full potential as an all around player.

[QUOTE]more hearsay bs. once again i deal with what actually happened, where as you like to dabble in things such as what ifs.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Do you even know what hearsay means? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean hypotheticals.And yes, I do look at more than just the result because it's necessary to properly credit them. I look at what happened and evaluate it the best I can.

[QUOTE]bryant stepping up like he did was the main reason the lakers romped to a 15-1 win loss record. bryant was the most impressive playoff performer out of everyone who participated in the 2001 playoffs, including teammate shaquille o'neal in his second most peak season. no other playoff run came close.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Kobe was NOT the best player in the '01 playoffs, he was second best behind Shaq. You can say he stepped up more compared to his regular season and I might agree, but Shaq was their best and most valuable player of the '01 playoffs.

[QUOTE]i respect that too, and i have him as the best player in the league in 1977, but unfortunately for your argument, champions hold alot of weight when official rankings take place, and kareem leading the bucks to the '71 championship (while losing only 2 games throughout the playoffs), after a 66-16 regular season is far too much to overcome.[/QUOTE]

For your rankings, not mine. Champions seem to be the best player more often than not, but there are exceptions as you acknowledged with '77 Kareem. As it is, we're both ranking Kareem over Bill Walton who won a title that year while sweeping Kareem's Lakers. tell me your thought process behind ranking Kareem 1st.

[QUOTE]lol so he proved that he could win championships in the past so he gets a pass for getting swept out of the playoffs just because he puts up some points? :roll: . yes it was nice series vs golden state, good enough to contribute to being ranked as the best player in the league.[/QUOTE]

Considering he won championships before and after and showed no signs of slowing down in the '77 playoffs, yes, I don't doubt that he was at a championship level, typically, the best player in the league is.

[QUOTE]player performance is very important. but if you struggle to lead your team anywhere in the playoffs, which is the true test of greatness, no matter what numbers you put up you will more than likely not be ranked as the best player in the league.[/QUOTE]

But that isn't the case with '77 Kareem since we both ranked him as the best in the league.

[QUOTE]definately. picking the best player on the championship team and naming him the best player is just silly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, anyone could do that.

[QUOTE]but compared to the 1971 bucks, not very successful at all.[/QUOTE]

And that wasn't a 1 man team. They had Oscar, Bob Dandridge and Jon mcGlocklin.

[QUOTE]this is correct. but winning a championship elevated him to 4th overall in '89, and 6th in '90.[/QUOTE]

Definitely couldn't put him that high myself, but you're not the first I've seen do it.

[QUOTE]i didn't say that that man ranked the scoring leaders as the best player, i just said he only ranked players after checking the leaders.[/QUOTE]

What's the difference? And I don't know where every player I've ranked as the best finished among scoring leaders. Bird in '84 and '86 for example, Moses in '83, Duncan in '05...I have no idea where these players finished among the scoring leaders off the top of my head.

[QUOTE]you look at youtube for ranking players?[/QUOTE]

I obviously didn't see that game on youtube since I uploaded it, but all games are what I base most of my rankings on.

Gotta go with Barkley on this one. Just all around more dynamic game than The Mailman. Barkley from 89-94, name me a more dominant power forward, ever? Tim Duncan? Thats it. No one remembers how mean Charles was, either. Just a tough, mean, explosive cat. Youll never see Malone do a 1 on 3 full court fastbreak and I mean, FAST break. The Mailman was efficient cuz he had Stockton feeding him off a high screen set for 8 or 9 years. Might as well have been gym practice for those two. Barkley was a one man freight train locomotive. And dont think he wouldnt bully guys twice his size on the boards either. The closest weve witnessed to Barkleys prime in terms of ferocity and physical power at the forward position in recent years is Lebron James.

[QUOTE=LA Lakers]Gotta go with Barkley on this one. Just all around more dynamic game than The Mailman. Barkley from 89-94, name me a more dominant power forward, ever? Tim Duncan? Thats it. No one remembers how mean Charles was, either. Just a tough, mean, explosive cat. Youll never see Malone do a 1 on 3 full court fastbreak and I mean, FAST break. The Mailman was efficient cuz he had Stockton feeding him off a high screen set for 8 or 9 years. Might as well have been gym practice for those two. Barkley was a one man freight train locomotive. And dont think he wouldnt bully guys twice his size on the boards either. The closest weve witnessed to Barkleys prime in terms of ferocity and physical power at the forward position in recent years is Lebron James.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Malone and stockton worked well together coz they knew eachothers game so well its not like malone just stood in the corner waiting for the pass he set picks and they anticipated so well, did barkley magically become a star working with an excellent pg in kj both in their primes

[QUOTE]Kidd and Baron were close. Nash was far ahead of every point guard. I was never a fan of Arenas, but he was a really good player back then.[/QUOTE]
nash was a great player, top 7 in the league infact, overall he was the best player on the suns team, but in the regular season shawn marion was the suns best player, and in the playoffs amare stoudemire was the suns best player.

kidd on the other hand was the nets best player in the regular season, and easily their best player in the playoffs by a huge margin. kidd's play in the playoffs is enough to separate the two.

arenas was a good player, but still not better than parker and davis, let alone kidd.
[QUOTE]He had Miller for the first half of the season, Orlando played their best ball after trading him.

They went 16-11 after the trade with a cast of Gordan Giricek, rookie Drew Gooden, Pat Garrity, 34 year old Darrell Armstrong and Shawn Kemp who gad given up blow in favor of an addiction to big macs and probably eaten half of his 2 dozen kids.

His cast was horrible, any perimeter player except for maybe prime Jordan would struggle to get them over .500. Doesn't matter if it was Kobe or Wade, the results would be no better.

But T-Mac's "empty" stats took that trash to a 7th game vs Detroit. This included a game where T-Mac scored 46 of Orlando's 77 points vs Detroit and he shot 62% while the rest of the team shot 26%. that's how bad that orlando team was. And that was right after his game 1 vs Detroit which remains one of my all-time favorite T-Mac games.

A big reason Orlando shot a good % on 3s is that T-Mac took most of them taking 6.5 per game, making an amazing 2.3 at a phenomenal 39%. Not to mention T-Mac's excellent playmaking which set Orlando's shooters up.[/QUOTE]
heh, that shawn kemp thing made me giggle.

there was only 8 games that separated the orlando magic from the detroit pistons, so taking that team to 7 games was seemed more amazing if you just look at it as a 1v8, but if you look at the games disparity then it becomes less stunning. on top of this only 1 team in th east managed to win more than 49 games and the best team won 50 games. a nice time to win some games an an eastern conference team.

mcgrady will take most of the blame for letting the magic lose a 3-1 lead in that pistons series. tmac went cold in the last 3 games, shooting a paltry 36%, including a laughable 7-24 effort in game 7, and turning the ball over almost 4 times per contest, meanwhile teammate drew gooden stepped up big with his 14 points and 13 rebounds per game and was the magic's best player in the final game.

any of the top 7 players with that sort of roster around them will win atleast as many games as tracy mcgrady did with the orlando magic that year.
[QUOTE]Anywhere near as efficiently as Kobe did? Besides, peak Iverson was a better scorer than '07 Lebron, arguably a better or at least comparable player.[/QUOTE]
you were talking about creating shots. peak iverson wasn't as good as '07 lebron, but on the other hand he was easily better than '07 bryant.
[QUOTE]But it can still make stats misleading, despite this, Kobe's numbers were better than Lebron's and the Lakers offense was much better than Cleveland's offense.[/QUOTE]
lebron had better numbers. and the lakers having a better offense means that lebron did much better to succeed in a trash system.
[QUOTE]ESPN, I think, it came up first on a google search for Kobe Bryant. Why?[/QUOTE]
i dunno, just making conversation :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]Lebron's rebounding was fine, but his numbers have often been misleading, look at how few offensive rebounds he's gotten. It'sonly been the past year or so that he's genuinely impressed me as a rebounder. 6.7 rpg for a SF playing 40 mpg is nothing special.[/QUOTE]
nobody else is worthy or able to play 40mpg, so if nobody else does it there is a reason behind it.

lol so he has impressed you the last few years with his rebounds? 0.9 offensive rebounds per game in '10 impressed you, while his 1.1 offensive rebounds per game in '07 was nothing special :oldlol:
[QUOTE]ebron's defense was nothing special in '07. he wasn't a bad defender like his first 3 years, but he wasn't great year. Pretty average.[/QUOTE]
he played a huge part in the cavs defensive schemes in '07, not only averaging almost 7 defensive rebounds per game and picking up almost 2 steals, but also showed evidence of great overall defense including great at transition defense, good post defense, and exceptional at stopping drives to the hoop and getting a hand in shooters faces.
[QUOTE]Lebron himself shot just 41.6% in those playoffs, so why are you bringing up %? Especially when lebron shot that same 35% in the finals with almost 6 TO per game.[/QUOTE]
simple, 42% is better than 35%. and when that 35% is from your second best player and you still make it to the finals it is some achievement.
[QUOTE]So now my argument is apg when he's topped his '08 apg numerous times? Kobe didn't take a bigger role in '09, he had an improved Pau Gasol for a full season rather than 26-27 games, he had Bynum for 50 games, instead of 35, and unlike '08, he played with Gasol and Ariza was there for the entire season.

The only advantage for his playoffs in '09 is the finals, but anyone with a brain can see that it's because the '08 celtics were clearly better than the '09 Magic and Kobe's '09 team was clearly better than his '08 team. Kobe had played better through his first 3 rounds in the '08 playoffs, he was truly unbelievable, achieving his full potential as an all around player.[/QUOTE]
bynum wasn't even as good as his '08 self and was a non factor in the playoffs, and the lakes had a lot more depth in '08.

bryant had a better regular season in '08, but was much better in the '09 playoffs. he led the lakers to the third most wins in their 60 year history, was the best and most impressive player out of all participants in the 2009 nba playoffs, led the lakers to a 16-7 record in the playoffs, and to top it off, was finals most valuable player with averges of 32.4ppg, 5.6rpg, 7.4apg, 1.4spg, and 1.4bpg after a 34/6/6 conference finals. it is just too easy to conclude that '09 bryant was better.
[QUOTE]Do you even know what hearsay means? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean hypotheticals.And yes, I do look at more than just the result because it's necessary to properly credit them. I look at what happened and evaluate it the best I can.[/QUOTE]
:roll: do you even know what the letters nba stand for? you aren't doing a good job of evalating such things as the nba, infact maybe it is time, with your best interests at heart, to re-evaluate your evaluating skills.
[QUOTE]Kobe was NOT the best player in the '01 playoffs, he was second best behind Shaq. You can say he stepped up more compared to his regular season and I might agree, but Shaq was their best and most valuable player of the '01 playoffs.[/QUOTE]
can you read? when did i say kobe was he best player in the '01 playoffs? he definately stepped up more than shaq and was more impressive.
[QUOTE]For your rankings, not mine. Champions seem to be the best player more often than not, but there are exceptions as you acknowledged with '77 Kareem. As it is, we're both ranking Kareem over Bill Walton who won a title that year while sweeping Kareem's Lakers. tell me your thought process behind ranking Kareem 1st.[/QUOTE]
well kareem was the most valuable player by one of the largest margins known to man, and played great in the playoffs. kareem was quite clearly the best player in '77
[QUOTE]Considering he won championships before and after and showed no signs of slowing down in the '77 playoffs, yes, I don't doubt that he was at a championship level, typically, the best player in the league is.[/QUOTE]
if you are at championship level you win a championship.
[QUOTE]But that isn't the case with '77 Kareem since we both ranked him as the best in the league.[/QUOTE]
kareem atleast made some noise in the playoffs, where as in '71 he set records.
[QUOTE]And that wasn't a 1 man team. They had Oscar, Bob Dandridge and Jon mcGlocklin.[/QUOTE]
you can't be a 1 man team if you finish with the best record in the league, like the lakers did in '77.

You two seriously need your own thread lol

[QUOTE=Dragonyeuw]You two seriously need your own thread lol[/QUOTE]


This thread could die if Shep would just admit he's wrong.

Malone was better and I think Malone has a better argument over Barkley at their peaks than what most people think.

Barkley was probably a better box-score player but that doesn't mean he was necessarily the better player.

I hate how underrated Malone has been. You would think with the way most people talk about him around here that he couldn't even create his own shot which is completely false.

[B]Barkley was Better from 1985-86 to 1994-95. Even I Admit Malone Was Better after 1995 but In Barkley`s Prime and Health, There Was No Contest On Who Was The Best PF in the Legaue.

[COLOR="blue"]1- Barkley was a Better Pure Scorer: Post Player and Mid Range Scorer: He Shot Less and Was More Effective[/COLOR]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]Season Career[/U][/COLOR]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on [COLOR="blue"]12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg [/COLOR](Season)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on [COLOR="red"]17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG [/COLOR](Season)

[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs Career: "Malone Shot Over 50% For Only 3 Play-Off Runs":[/COLOR][/U]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG [/COLOR](Play-Offs)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on [COLOR="red"]19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG[/COLOR] (Play-Offs)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="Blue"]2- Barkley Was The Better Skilled Player and Ballhandler. Could Go Coast to Coast on His Own.

3- Barkley was the Better Offensive Creator

4- Barkley was the Better Rebonder

5- Barkley was the Better Passer and Assister

6- Barkley was The Better Team Defender and Stealer (Highest SPG Avg for a PF)

7- And In His Phily Days...He Was a Better Shot Blocker and Off Man Defender.

8- Most Doubled Player Prior to Shaq

9- Called the "Zone Buster"

10- Created More Ilegal Defenses in the NBA

11- Like Shaq...Needed More Defensive Rotations

12- Forced Rule Change "5 Second Back to the Basket Rule"[/COLOR]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="Navy"]Malone was a Better FT Shooter and Post Defender. Thats About IT[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=D.J.]This thread could die if Shep would just admit he's wrong.[/QUOTE]

[B]He is a "Barkley Hater"...Like all Jazz Fans. So Thats Not Possible.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Barkley was Better from 1985-86 to 1994-95. Even I Admit Malone Was Better after 1995 but In Barkley`s Prime and Health, There Was No Contest On Who Was The Best PF in the Legaue.

[COLOR="blue"]1- Barkley was a Better Pure Scorer: Post Player and Mid Range Scorer: He Shot Less and Was More Effective[/COLOR]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]Season Career[/U][/COLOR]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on [COLOR="blue"]12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg [/COLOR](Season)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on [COLOR="red"]17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG [/COLOR](Season)

[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs Career: "Malone Shot Over 50% For Only 3 Play-Off Runs":[/COLOR][/U]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG [/COLOR](Play-Offs)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on [COLOR="red"]19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG[/COLOR] (Play-Offs)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="Blue"]2- Barkley Was The Better Skilled Player and Ballhandler. Could Go Coast to Coast on His Own.

3- Barkley was the Better Offensive Creator

4- Barkley was the Better Rebonder

5- Barkley was the Better Passer and Assister

6- Barkley was The Better Team Defender and Stealer (Highest SPG Avg for a PF)

7- And In His Phily Days...He Was a Better Shot Blocker and Off Man Defender.

8- Most Doubled Player Prior to Shaq

9- Called the "Zone Buster"

10- Created More Ilegal Defenses in the NBA

11- Like Shaq...Needed More Defensive Rotations

12- Forced Rule Change "5 Second Back to the Basket Rule"[/COLOR]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="Navy"]Malone was a Better FT Shooter and Post Defender. Thats About IT[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR="Navy"]How About Including What Barkley Shot from the 3P Line in that Stretch? Are you Just Going to Conveniently Leave Out that he Shot 27% (403/1505) From 3P In that Stretch?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Why Should We Just Omit and Ignore a Part of His game That he Felt the Need to Inefficiently Include on a Heavy Basis?[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=ThunderStruk022][B][COLOR="Navy"]How About Including What Barkley Shot from the 3P Line in that Stretch? Are you Just Going to Conveniently Leave Out that he Shot 27% (403/1505) From 3P In that Stretch?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Why Should We Just Omit and Ignore a Part of His game That he Felt the Need to Inefficiently Include on a Heavy Basis?[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

[B]The Point Is To Show Who Was a [U]Better Post Player and Mid Range Scorer[/U]. Thats it...And its Barkley for Sure.

The Colors Are There So One Can See Faster the Point Im Trying to Prove.

Barkley was Bored of Dominating Inside that he Began Shooting 3s. Even I Hated It. Still Doesn`t Change the Fact that Inside Only Shaq Was Better In the Last 25-30 Years. So :bowdown:

BTW: Those Stats I Discovered ARE FOR HIS WHOLE CAREER. Not a Stretch[/B]

[QUOTE=ThunderStruk022][B][COLOR="Navy"]How About Including What Barkley Shot from the 3P Line in that Stretch? Are you Just Going to Conveniently Leave Out that he Shot 27% (403/1505) From 3P In that Stretch?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Why Should We Just Omit and Ignore a Part of His game That he Felt the Need to Inefficiently Include on a Heavy Basis?[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]


Because Malone rarely shot three pointers, so you can't compare them. Malone attempted only 310 and oddly enough, shot a very close percentage to Barkley's over their careers(27.4% to 26.6% in favor of Malone).

[QUOTE]The Point Is To Show Who Was a Better Post Player and Mid Range Scorer. Thats it...And its Barkley for Sure.[/QUOTE]

How do you know Barkley is the better mid-range scorer when you don't list the numbers from mid-range ?

I don't even think that data is available and I doubt anybody saying that, but that stats you give are so arbitrary. The 2 point shots could be anything within the arc and Barkley was a much more of a post player than a mid-range scorer.

Plus you need to take into account how Barkley was defended for his jump shots/drives/post game.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]How do you know Barkley is the better mid-range scorer when you don't list the numbers from mid-range ?

I don't even think that data is available and I doubt anybody saying that, but that stats you give are so arbitrary. The 2 point shots could be anything within the arc and Barkley was a much more of a post player than a mid-range scorer.

Plus you need to take into account how Barkley was defended for his jump shots/drives/post game.[/QUOTE]

[B]Cause I Saw Both of Them Play When Barkley was Healthy unlike Most of The Kiddos Here That Saw a Fat Overweight Back and Knee Injured Chuck in the Late 90s. :confusedshrug:

Its True Barkey was More of a Post Player but He Also Had a Great Mid Range Shot...He Worked With Dantley Alot (Malone developed a Good Post Game As He Got Older but Was Never as Effective as Chuck`s).

Barkley was Many Times Doubled In the Mid Range Region Unlike Malone Who Was Doubled in the Post as was Barkley even More...But Malone Was Not Doubled Far Range Like Chuck Was Doubled. See The Thing Is Barkley`s Skillset Presented More of a Problem because he Could Not Just Hit Post Game Shots or Mid Range Jumpers (within a Stand like Bird) but Also Drive Past You in a Second 1 on 1. He Could Also Go Coast to Coast and Rumble his Way Onto the Basket. He Was More Dangerous Offensively.

See if a Player Shoots that Well Inside 3-Point Line You Might Be Thinking It He was over 7`0 ft and 280 lbs and All Where Dunks or Putbacks Rebounds? :no: But Thats Not Just What He Did. To Have a High 2-Point FG% and Score Alot In It...You Must Be Versatile Enough Offensively.

Like This Video Shows: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTMFTQFvO_8[/url]

If You Don`t Double Barkley 8-12 FT Away from the Rim...This Happened.[/B]

[QUOTE=D.J.]Because Malone rarely shot three pointers, so you can't compare them. Malone attempted only 310 and oddly enough, shot a very close percentage to Barkley's over their careers(27.4% to 26.6% in favor of Malone).[/QUOTE]

[B]Barkley Shot Way More Threes and Wasn`t a Specialist Thats Why is FG% Dropped BUT.... Compared To Karl He Still Was More Effective.

What Im Pointing Out is Mid Range and Post Play FG%. That is, Inside the 3-Point Line....Where Barkley`s 2-Point FG% and 2-Point FGs Made (over 21 and 22 PPG) WHERE MUCH HIGHER IN % AND EFFECTIVENSS Compared to Karl. Thats All.[/B]

Charles Barkley is right.

He's one of the 5 most dominant scorers of all time (Wilt, Shaq, Jordan, Kareem, Barkley), better rebounder, more doubles teams, etc.

Not a contest to me. Karl Malone gives you longevity. Charles Barkley gives you more dominance. I take dominance over longevity.

[QUOTE=Shep]nash was a great player, top 7 in the league infact, overall he was the best player on the suns team, but in the regular season shawn marion was the suns best player, and in the playoffs amare stoudemire was the suns best player.[/QUOTE]

Marion was not the Suns best player. Great complementary player, versatile and valuable at both ends, but not on Nash's level. Nash was the key to everything the Suns did. Obviously running the break and setting up finishers like Amare and Marion, or making their half court offense work in screen/rolls with Amare, probing and keeping his dribble to either find a slasher like Marion or a shooter in the corner, and the ability to score in multiple ways himself when he wanted made him that much more effective. He was up there with the best pure shooters, there was no one I had more confidence in when he took a shot, whether it was a pull up 3, shooting over a bigger player when a switch forced a mismatch, the ability to make off balance 15 footers and shoot with accuracy from almost everywhere.

Amare did step up more than Nash in the playoffs. Nash played well as usual, but not as noticeable compared to his usual level as Nash.

[QUOTE]kidd on the other hand was the nets best player in the regular season, and easily their best player in the playoffs by a huge margin. kidd's play in the playoffs is enough to separate the two.[/QUOTE]

Carter was clearly the Nets best player during the regular season, though Kidd was easily better during the playoffs.

[QUOTE]arenas was a good player, but still not better than parker and davis, let alone kidd.[/QUOTE]

He was definitely better than Parker, and similar to Davis. Arenas was bordering on superstar level at that time and simply a more dangerous player than Kidd was at 34 years old.

[QUOTE]heh, that shawn kemp thing made me giggle.[/QUOTE]

It's sad remembering Kemp on the Sonics dunking over everyone, blocking shots and grabbing rebounds left and right and then in Orlando, waddling onto the court, taking a few 20 footers, getting out of breath and waddling back over to the bench.

[QUOTE]there was only 8 games that separated the orlando magic from the detroit pistons, so taking that team to 7 games was seemed more amazing if you just look at it as a 1v8, but if you look at the games disparity then it becomes less stunning. on top of this only 1 team in th east managed to win more than 49 games and the best team won 50 games. a nice time to win some games an an eastern conference team.[/QUOTE]

Even so, Detroit was a much better team. They had Ben Wallace in addition to a well-rounded starting 5 and an excellent bench.

[QUOTE]mcgrady will take most of the blame for letting the magic lose a 3-1 lead in that pistons series. tmac went cold in the last 3 games, shooting a paltry 36%, including a laughable 7-24 effort in game 7, and turning the ball over almost 4 times per contest, meanwhile teammate drew gooden stepped up big with his 14 points and 13 rebounds per game and was the magic's best player in the final game.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, T-Mac's series certainly wasn't all good, but it wasn't just bad either. He had the unbelievable start to the series and then the disappointing finish after Detroit switched Tayshaun Prince onto him. T-Mac averaged 36/6/5, 2.3 spg, 1.3 bpg on 52 FG% and 40 3P% and 3 made threes to get Orlando up 3-1.

[QUOTE]any of the top 7 players with that sort of roster around them will win atleast as many games as tracy mcgrady did with the orlando magic that year.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt it.

[QUOTE]you were talking about creating shots. peak iverson wasn't as good as '07 lebron, but on the other hand he was easily better than '07 bryant.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: '07 Kobe did what Iverson did the thing best better than Iverson did, and he was also a better playmaker. There's no real argument for Iverson here.

[QUOTE]lebron had better numbers. and the lakers having a better offense means that lebron did much better to succeed in a trash system.[/QUOTE]

Lebron didn't have better numbers, he had small advantages in assists(+0.6) and rebounds(+1) which isn't enough to make up for Kobe's big scoring advantage(+4.3)

As far as their systems? It's questionable whether Lebron could succeed in the triangle. He hasn't shown much of an ability to play without the ball. Only this year did he seem to improve a bit.

The Lakers across the board were a much better offensive team than the Cavs. The Lakers were 5th in ppg, 6th in FG% and 7th in offensive rating while the Cavs were 18th in offensive rating, 19th in ppg and 24th in FG%.

[QUOTE]nobody else is worthy or able to play 40mpg, so if nobody else does it there is a reason behind it.

lol so he has impressed you the last few years with his rebounds? 0.9 offensive rebounds per game in '10 impressed you, while his 1.1 offensive rebounds per game in '07 was nothing special :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

When did I say that? I've always said that Lebron's rebounding was the most overrated part of his game until this year. I noticed his rebounding a lot more, and not surprisingly, he averaged a phenomenal 9.7 rpg during the playoffs and 2.3 offensive boards.

[QUOTE]he played a huge part in the cavs defensive schemes in '07, not only averaging almost 7 defensive rebounds per game and picking up almost 2 steals, but also showed evidence of great overall defense including great at transition defense, good post defense, and exceptional at stopping drives to the hoop and getting a hand in shooters faces.[/QUOTE]

It seems that you're describing Lebron the last few years, particularly in Miami.

And since you like small sample sizes(Odom without Kobe), how about the 4 games Cleveland played without Lebron when several players put up better numbers than usual, the team went 3-1 with a massive point differential, the Cavs had 5 players in double figures in all 4 games including 8 in their 124-97 win vs the Warriors?

[QUOTE]simple, 42% is better than 35%. and when that 35% is from your second best player and you still make it to the finals it is some achievement.[/QUOTE]

It's an achievement, just one that doesn't impress me compared to other things I've seen from elite players, including Lebron himself.

[QUOTE]bynum wasn't even as good as his '08 self and was a non factor in the playoffs, and the lakes had a lot more depth in '08.[/QUOTE]

Correct about Bynum, but as far as depth, they had pretty much the same roster, except improved versions of Gasol and Ariza for the whole season. The role players shooting so much better had a lot to do with Kobe doing the best job of his career as a playmaker.

[QUOTE]bryant had a better regular season in '08, but was much better in the '09 playoffs. he led the lakers to the third most wins in their 60 year history, was the best and most impressive player out of all participants in the 2009 nba playoffs, led the lakers to a 16-7 record in the playoffs, and to top it off, was finals most valuable player with averges of 32.4ppg, 5.6rpg, 7.4apg, 1.4spg, and 1.4bpg after a 34/6/6 conference finals. it is just too easy to conclude that '09 bryant was better.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you admit his '08 regular season was better, so that requires no further discussion.

Regarding the playoffs, I'll concede that his '09 run has a case for his best playoff run because of consistency through all 4 rounds, but his play through 3 rounds was clearly more impressive in 2008.

And there was a massive difference between the '08 and '09 finals. Not just Kobe's performance, but his opponent as well as the help he got.

[QUOTE]:roll: do you even know what the letters nba stand for? you aren't doing a good job of evalating such things as the nba, infact maybe it is time, with your best interests at heart, to re-evaluate your evaluating skills.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Nice job changing the subject.

[QUOTE]can you read? when did i say kobe was he best player in the '01 playoffs? he definately stepped up more than shaq and was more impressive.[/QUOTE]

Ok, my mistake, I interpreted more impressive as meaning better.

[QUOTE]well kareem was the most valuable player by one of the largest margins known to man, and played great in the playoffs. kareem was quite clearly the best player in '77[/QUOTE]

No disagreement here.

[QUOTE]if you are at championship level you win a championship.[/QUOTE]

So if you consider Kareem to have been clearly better than Walton who won a title then how was Kareem not at a championship level?

[QUOTE]kareem atleast made some noise in the playoffs, where as in '71 he set records.[/QUOTE]

His team did, but his individual play was nothing special by his standards. His finals was pretty dominant, though.

[QUOTE]you can't be a 1 man team if you finish with the best record in the league, like the lakers did in '77.[/QUOTE]

There's never literally been a 1 man team, it's a figure of speech. But he really didn't have quality teammates outside of Cazzie Russell, Lucius Allen and Kermit Washington, and he got the best record with Washington out for 29 games. Washington was his only help inside and on the boards.

It was a really flawed team and a team with limited talent to get the best record.

[QUOTE]Marion was not the Suns best player. Great complementary player, versatile and valuable at both ends, but not on Nash's level. Nash was the key to everything the Suns did. Obviously running the break and setting up finishers like Amare and Marion, or making their half court offense work in screen/rolls with Amare, probing and keeping his dribble to either find a slasher like Marion or a shooter in the corner, and the ability to score in multiple ways himself when he wanted made him that much more effective. He was up there with the best pure shooters, there was no one I had more confidence in when he took a shot, whether it was a pull up 3, shooting over a bigger player when a switch forced a mismatch, the ability to make off balance 15 footers and shoot with accuracy from almost everywhere.

Amare did step up more than Nash in the playoffs. Nash played well as usual, but not as noticeable compared to his usual level as Nash.[/QUOTE]
marion was the suns best player in the regular season. he would take the opposing teams best offensive threat on a nightly basis, defend bigs, defend smalls, fill holes, get in passing lanes, and block shots on the defensive end on top of displaying amazing defense on the inside, outside, and in transition. on the offensive end he still had the energy to score 18 points with zero plays run for him, without the ball he was one of the best players in the league and knew where to be at the right time better than almost anyone in the league, had a true shooting % of 59, and averaged 10 rebounds per contest.
[QUOTE]Carter was clearly the Nets best player during the regular season, though Kidd was easily better during the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
it was closer in the regular season, but kidd is still clearly better, on top of them being worlds apart in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]He was definitely better than Parker, and similar to Davis. Arenas was bordering on superstar level at that time and simply a more dangerous player than Kidd was at 34 years old.[/QUOTE]
i will admit that it was very close between the three point guards of davis, parker, and arenas. but that is the order of those three players, as tight as it is between them. as for kidd? well the only thing arenas was more dangerous than kidd in was the possibility of getting more turnovers than assists, and/or shooting 7-22 from the field.
[QUOTE]Even so, Detroit was a much better team. They had Ben Wallace in addition to a well-rounded starting 5 and an excellent bench.[/QUOTE]
that much better team only managed 8 more wins
[QUOTE]Fair enough, T-Mac's series certainly wasn't all good, but it wasn't just bad either. He had the unbelievable start to the series and then the disappointing finish after Detroit switched Tayshaun Prince onto him. T-Mac averaged 36/6/5, 2.3 spg, 1.3 bpg on 52 FG% and 40 3P% and 3 made threes to get Orlando up 3-1.[/QUOTE]
i agree, it was what would be expected of tracy mcgrady after the regular season that he had.
[QUOTE]I seriously doubt it.[/QUOTE]
ok :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]'07 Kobe did what Iverson did the thing best better than Iverson did, and he was also a better playmaker. There's no real argument for Iverson here.[/QUOTE]
:roll: how many playoff games did bryant win again?
[QUOTE]Lebron didn't have better numbers, he had small advantages in assists(+0.6) and rebounds(+1) which isn't enough to make up for Kobe's big scoring advantage(+4.3)[/QUOTE]
of course it isn't, but lebron had better numbers. on top of his more rebounds, and assists, he also had more steals, blocks, and less turnovers.
[QUOTE]As far as their systems? It's questionable whether Lebron could succeed in the triangle. He hasn't shown much of an ability to play without the ball. Only this year did he seem to improve a bit.[/QUOTE]
no questions need to be asked, all that needs to be evaluated is what he did in [I]his [/I]system.
[QUOTE]The Lakers across the board were a much better offensive team than the Cavs. The Lakers were 5th in ppg, 6th in FG% and 7th in offensive rating while the Cavs were 18th in offensive rating, 19th in ppg and 24th in FG%.[/QUOTE]
more proof that the cavs had a trash offense.
[QUOTE]When did I say that? I've always said that Lebron's rebounding was the most overrated part of his game until this year. I noticed his rebounding a lot more, and not surprisingly, he averaged a phenomenal 9.7 rpg during the playoffs and 2.3 offensive boards.[/QUOTE]
you said he has impressed you only the last few years.
[QUOTE]It seems that you're describing Lebron the last few years, particularly in Miami.

And since you like small sample sizes(Odom without Kobe), how about the 4 games Cleveland played without Lebron when several players put up better numbers than usual, the team went 3-1 with a massive point differential, the Cavs had 5 players in double figures in all 4 games including 8 in their 124-97 win vs the Warriors?[/QUOTE]
i am describing lebron in the 2007 season.

all 4 games were against sub .500 teams.
[QUOTE]It's an achievement, just one that doesn't impress me compared to other things I've seen from elite players, including Lebron himself.[/QUOTE]
it was an achievement that catapulted him into second best in the league.
[QUOTE]Correct about Bynum, but as far as depth, they had pretty much the same roster, except improved versions of Gasol and Ariza for the whole season. The role players shooting so much better had a lot to do with Kobe doing the best job of his career as a playmaker.[/QUOTE]
kobe's play in the 2009 playoffs is the sealer here.
[QUOTE]Ok, so you admit his '08 regular season was better, so that requires no further discussion.

Regarding the playoffs, I'll concede that his '09 run has a case for his best playoff run because of consistency through all 4 rounds, but his play through 3 rounds was clearly more impressive in 2008.

And there was a massive difference between the '08 and '09 finals. Not just Kobe's performance, but his opponent as well as the help he got. [/QUOTE]
i'm not going to go into individual rounds. that is like saying for the first 60 games of the regular season he was good, but for the last 20 he wasn't.

his playoff run as a whole was alot more impressive and you are clearly underrating the orlando magic who won 59 games, beat the defending champion boston celtics, beat the best player in the world in lebron james playing out of his skin to the tune of 39/8/8 and the 66-16 cleveland cavaliers. the magic boasted the best center and top 2 overall dwight howard, rashard lewis playing the best ball of his career who was a top 4 power forward, and a top 4 small forward in hedo turkoglu.
[QUOTE]Nice job changing the subject.[/QUOTE]
no, i answered your question.
[QUOTE]So if you consider Kareem to have been clearly better than Walton who won a title then how was Kareem not at a championship level?[/QUOTE]
because he didn't play at a level in which is team needed to win a championship

[QUOTE=Shep]marion was the suns best player in the regular season. he would take the opposing teams best offensive threat on a nightly basis, defend bigs, defend smalls, fill holes, get in passing lanes, and block shots on the defensive end on top of displaying amazing defense on the inside, outside, and in transition. on the offensive end he still had the energy to score 18 points with zero plays run for him, without the ball he was one of the best players in the league and knew where to be at the right time better than almost anyone in the league, had a true shooting % of 59, and averaged 10 rebounds per contest.[/QUOTE]

The Suns did actually run a play or 2 for Marion, often to get him a lob pass, but that's besides the point. I appreciate what he did without needing the ball, as a defensive player especially with the versatility you pointed out as well as his help defense and rebounding in addition to his ability as a finisher and shooter.

But Nash was the key to that team, it's quite obvious. He was the guy putting everyone in position to score both in their half court offense and transition. This team may not even make the playoffs without him, that's how much they relied on him. Marion is a great guy to have, but I'm sure the Suns would still find a way to stay at the top of the West as long as they had Nash. If you look at one guy to credit the most for Phoenix having such an amazing offense, it's obviously Nash.

[QUOTE]i will admit that it was very close between the three point guards of davis, parker, and arenas. but that is the order of those three players, as tight as it is between them. as for kidd? well the only thing arenas was more dangerous than kidd in was the possibility of getting more turnovers than assists, and/or shooting 7-22 from the field.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not convinced Parker is in that class myself, but I won't dismiss the possibility. Parker was able to be a key contributor on a championship team, something that I'm not as sure of Davis and Arenas being able to do. And Parker was on a team that didn't look to run in a system where they looked inside to Duncan first, so he did sacrifice his game individually and made it work, something I'm not sure Davis or Arenas would be willing to do.

As for your comments about Arenas vs Kidd? Your criticizing his shooting % yet he shot better than Kidd(42% vs 40%) while making more 3s and getting to the line a lot more. If this was prime Kidd, I'd say get Gilbert's chucking ass out of here, I wouldn't insult prime Kidd like that. But this is 2007, and Kidd certainly wasn't the threat to penetrate that he once was, while Gilbert could take his man off the dribble at will. He had gotten to the level where many at the time were putting him among the league's superstars.

[QUOTE]that much better team only managed 8 more wins[/QUOTE]

And you don't think that's a significant difference? We're talking about a team that was barely over .500 vs a 50 win team. 50 wins is often where people start talking about teams approaching contender status. Hell, the '04 and '05 Pistons only won 54 games and they won a championship and made it to game 7 of the finals, respectively.

Just compare the rosters. Detroit had legitimate quality starters at every position with the exception of Michael Curry in addition to a great bench that included the '02 sixth man of the year. They had an excellent 9 man rotation, a rarity, especially when it includes all-star talents, most notably Ben Wallace who had a major impact on games.

T-Mac's 2 best players were Drew Gooden and Gordan Giricek in their rookie seasons. Gooden had good athletic ability and a nice skill set for his position which made him a fine scorer and rebounder, but even at his best, he was never a great NBA player because he was never much of a passer or defender, and he was also a dumb player. His rookie year was no exception. Giricek was never more than a decent SG/SF, and after those 2, it gets much, much worse.

And Orlando didn't even make up for this lack of offensive support around McGrady with a good defensive team that rebounded and worked hard. They were a terrible defensive team. The fact that T-Mac made them a solid offensive team is a great to how great of a player he was at this time.

He was as complete of a shooting guard as I've seen outside Jordan, and maybe Kobe. He was arguably the best scorer in the league this season rivaled by only Shaq and Kobe, one of the best rebounders at his position(nearly matched the rebounding average you found impressive for '07 Lebron which he accomplished as a forward, while '03 T-Mac was playing mostly guard) and probably the best passer and playmaker that wasn't as a point guard at this time.

[QUOTE]:roll: how many playoff games did bryant win again?[/QUOTE]

1, which is how much you'd expect facing a 61 win Suns team that featured Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion in their primes in addition to 6th man of the year Leandro Barbosa and fine group of role players in Raja Bell, Boris Diaw and Kurt Thomas. How many games did you expect Kobe to win surrounded by Lamar Odom(with a bad shoulder), Luke Walton, Kwame Brown, Jordan Farmar and Shammond Williams.

[QUOTE]of course it isn't, but lebron had better numbers. on top of his more rebounds, and assists, he also had more steals, blocks, and less turnovers.[/QUOTE]

The difference in those categories were even smaller. Just 0.1 fewer turnovers, 0.2 more steals and 0.2 more blocks.

[QUOTE]no questions need to be asked, all that needs to be evaluated is what he did in [I]his [/I]system.[/QUOTE]

It is important to me because I've yet to see a player in a role as ball-dominant as Lebron's even in Cleveland win a championship.

[QUOTE]more proof that the cavs had a trash offense.[/QUOTE]

Nah, more proof Kobe was a much better offensive player at this time, especially considering the massive disparity in their teams offenses, no matter what category you consider is the best for judging this. We can be realistic and acknowledge that neither player had particularly good offensive support, yet Kobe's Lakers were much, much better offensively.

I will acknowledge that some of this difference can be attributed to Phil Jackson being a great offensive coach, while the dumb expression Mike Brown always has on his face pretty much sums up his knowledge offensively.

[QUOTE]you said he has impressed you only the last few years.[/QUOTE]

As a rebounder? Pretty much. I mean, he was always above average just based on how many of them he got, but it's only been very recently that I've started to notice his rebounding the way you'd think with the numbers he puts up.

[QUOTE]all 4 games were against sub .500 teams.[/QUOTE]

The competition wasn't that much different than what Lamar Odom faced without Kobe.

[QUOTE]it was an achievement that catapulted him into second best in the league.[/QUOTE]

Nah, but I'll reluctantly give him 3rd.

[QUOTE]kobe's play in the 2009 playoffs is the sealer here.[/QUOTE]

Nope, this difference is purely circumstantial, it's a difference that was a result of a superior supporting cast and an inferior finals opponent.

[QUOTE]i'm not going to go into individual rounds. that is like saying for the first 60 games of the regular season he was good, but for the last 20 he wasn't.[/QUOTE]

Consistency is part of how I judge a playoff run.

[QUOTE]his playoff run as a whole was alot more impressive and you are clearly underrating the orlando magic who won 59 games, beat the defending champion boston celtics, beat the best player in the world in lebron james playing out of his skin to the tune of 39/8/8 and the 66-16 cleveland cavaliers. the magic boasted the best center and top 2 overall dwight howard, rashard lewis playing the best ball of his career who was a top 4 power forward, and a top 4 small forward in hedo turkoglu.[/QUOTE]

Orlando was a fine team, though Dwight was not top 2, more like top 4-5 and I wouldn't rate Lewis or Turkoglu as high as you did either. But the point is, Orlando was certainly not on par with the '08 Celtics, they barely beat the Celtics without KG in '09 and then lost to the 2010 Celtics the next year.

[QUOTE]because he didn't play at a level in which is team needed to win a championship[/QUOTE]

That level would probably require the highest level a player has reached given the lack of support he had. I'm not sure 1994 Hakeem, 2000 Shaq, '67 Wilt, peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird ect. would have won either. In fact, I doubt it.

It seems like Barkley's entire argument over Malone is superior box-score numbers and how dependent Malone was on Stockton.

The latter is false considering how some of Malone's greatest games were when Stockton was struggling or not even playing.

The former does not necessarily mean he was better. A lot of players can put up great box-score numbers and don't necessarily help their team win. We can look at Adrian Dantley for example. He put up great amount of ppg under amazing efficiency his entire career but most people know that he didn't help his team win much because of how he stopped the ball-movement and how long he took the score. Barkley could be argued the same.

It seems like it is becoming more and more revisionist that people are saying Barkley was better. Barkley put up better numbers, but he wasn't the better player.

[QUOTE=WillyJakk]Charles is right, he was better than Malone.

Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.[/QUOTE]
The same could be said for Malone in 97 and 98. :confusedshrug:

Yea barkley definitely slowed the game down his main move which he was great at was gettin the ball in the post back up to within a few feet then shoot but when the dbl came he usually would kick it out, would of been unstoppable in a game of one on one but doesnt equate to good team ball movement, they were both great but both had their limitations amd cldnt score at will quite like mj

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]It seems like Barkley's entire argument over Malone is superior box-score numbers and how dependent Malone was on Stockton.

The latter is false considering how some of Malone's greatest games were when Stockton was struggling or not even playing.

The former does not necessarily mean he was better. A lot of players can put up great box-score numbers and don't necessarily help their team win. We can look at Adrian Dantley for example. He put up great amount of ppg under amazing efficiency his entire career but most people know that he didn't help his team win much because of how he stopped the ball-movement and how long he took the score. Barkley could be argued the same.

It seems like it is becoming more and more revisionist that people are saying Barkley was better. Barkley put up better numbers, but he wasn't the better player.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Barkley did not have better numbers, Malone had an unreal statline of 31/11/3 on 56 FG% in '90, the one blemish being 3.7 TO, yet Barkley was clearly the better player at that time 25/12/4, 60 FG%. Actually, even though the rounded numbers make the difference seem bigger, Barkley's rebounding advantage statistically was negligible at 11.5 rpg vs Malone's 11.1 rpg.

It's not revisionist history at all to call Barkley better, I think it's apparent that he was the more dominant player, certainly during Barkley's own prime from about '88 or '89 to '93, there was no question who was better at that time. Granted, we have to remember that many believe Malone's best ball came later, and I'm one of those who thinks he was at his best from '94-'98, hell, Malone really didn't look to have declined by 2000 at 36, but that was a time when Barkley was slowing done like a player normally does at that age. So we can't necessarily just go by who was considered better during Barkley's own prime since Malone's prime was arguably during a different time, so it could be like saying, well, Malone was considered better in the mid 90's when Barkley was still elite, so he's better.

But it's clear that Malone wasn't viewed the same Barkley was when both were at their best. Barkley was a player with solid, but normal longevity for a star, while Malone had superhuman longevity, that's ultimately what has caused such a big debate.

Now, everyone has their own criteria, and that's fine, but personally, I'm going to look at which player was their best during their primes, and make a decision based on that, unless it was close enough to need a tiebreaker(which I don't think it is.) This is because looking at players prime vs prime is the most representative of who you'll see as the better player purely going after what you watched. Longevity is much harder to account for, looking at their primes, you can watch one period and easily determine who was more effective.

Looking at say '89-'93 Barkley(prime arguably started '88, but I want an even stretch to compare to Malone's) vs '94-'98 Malone, and I can say that this version of Barkley was a better scorer than Malone ever was, a better rebounder and a better passer(though Malone became an excellent passer.) Barkley's versatility was another bonus, not many players have been bigger threats to get their own rebounds and go coast to coast. And above anything else, Barkley just took control of games more and dominated. He was probably one of the 3 most doubled players of the last 20 or so years along with Hakeem and Shaq.

Malone did become a fantastic individual defender, and defense is a clear advantage over Chuck. It's very important at this position, but not enough to make up for the other advantages to me.

[QUOTE=WockaVodka]The same could be said for Malone in 97 and 98. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

'97? Probably. '98? Nah, Shaq really seemed to be entering his prime and was the more dominant force by this point, imo. Plus, the version of Jordan Chuck was competing with for best player was prime Jordan. Chuck and Jordan saw their primes pretty much overlap exactly from '89-'93. You could argue Chuck's prime started a year earlier, and Jordan's really started in '90 when he adjusted his game when Phil came over, but the same period. Jordan was still great in '97 and '98, but he had clearly lost a bit compared to the early 90's. It showed more in Jordan's ability to give 100% at both ends like the early 90's, and also be a bigger playmaker, compared to the 2nd 3peat where MJ conserved energy by focusing on offense more, though he was still a good defender, Pippen picked up the slack and became the Bulls best and most important defender during the second 3peat, while that was Jordan during the first 3peat.

[QUOTE]The Suns did actually run a play or 2 for Marion, often to get him a lob pass, but that's besides the point. I appreciate what he did without needing the ball, as a defensive player especially with the versatility you pointed out as well as his help defense and rebounding in addition to his ability as a finisher and shooter.

But Nash was the key to that team, it's quite obvious. He was the guy putting everyone in position to score both in their half court offense and transition. This team may not even make the playoffs without him, that's how much they relied on him. Marion is a great guy to have, but I'm sure the Suns would still find a way to stay at the top of the West as long as they had Nash. If you look at one guy to credit the most for Phoenix having such an amazing offense, it's obviously Nash.[/QUOTE]
no point discussing what would happen if neither nash or marion were absent from the line up. i deal with what actually happened, and what was apparent was that during the regular season shawn marion was the better player.
[QUOTE]As for your comments about Arenas vs Kidd? Your criticizing his shooting % yet he shot better than Kidd(42% vs 40%) while making more 3s and getting to the line a lot more. If this was prime Kidd, I'd say get Gilbert's chucking ass out of here, I wouldn't insult prime Kidd like that. But this is 2007, and Kidd certainly wasn't the threat to penetrate that he once was, while Gilbert could take his man off the dribble at will. He had gotten to the level where many at the time were putting him among the league's superstars.[/QUOTE]
who cares if he shot 2 percentage points more? to have a scoring point guard means will shoot you in the foot more times than not, especially when the same scoring point guard does not know when to stop shooting the ball, as you will see with arenas' habit of going 9-25, 8-26, 6-20, 6-23, 5-19, 1-12, 2-12..just pathetic percentages you do not want to see from your point guard, and thats in just the first month :roll: .
[QUOTE]And you don't think that's a significant difference? We're talking about a team that was barely over .500 vs a 50 win team. 50 wins is often where people start talking about teams approaching contender status. Hell, the '04 and '05 Pistons only won 54 games and they won a championship and made it to game 7 of the finals, respectively.[/QUOTE]
yeh and the 1981 houston rockets went 40-42 and made the nba finals, so that means the '03 magic could have made the finals right?
[QUOTE]Just compare the rosters. Detroit had legitimate quality starters at every position with the exception of Michael Curry in addition to a great bench that included the '02 sixth man of the year. They had an excellent 9 man rotation, a rarity, especially when it includes all-star talents, most notably Ben Wallace who had a major impact on games.[/QUOTE]
that excellent 9 man rotation only managed to win them 8 more games than the orlando magic
[QUOTE]T-Mac's 2 best players were Drew Gooden and Gordan Giricek in their rookie seasons. Gooden had good athletic ability and a nice skill set for his position which made him a fine scorer and rebounder, but even at his best, he was never a great NBA player because he was never much of a passer or defender, and he was also a dumb player. His rookie year was no exception. Giricek was never more than a decent SG/SF, and after those 2, it gets much, much worse.[/QUOTE]
gooden was good enough to outplay tmac in the final game of the playoffs and step up alot more than him in that series overall. the magic also had darrell armstrong the 1999 6th man of the year and most improved player, who was a great overall defender, great free throw shooter, and a good driving ability.
[QUOTE]And Orlando didn't even make up for this lack of offensive support around McGrady with a good defensive team that rebounded and worked hard. They were a terrible defensive team. The fact that T-Mac made them a solid offensive team is a great to how great of a player he was at this time.[/QUOTE]
ofcourse he was a great player, top 8 infact
[QUOTE]He was as complete of a shooting guard as I've seen outside Jordan, and maybe Kobe. He was arguably the best scorer in the league this season rivaled by only Shaq and Kobe, one of the best rebounders at his position(nearly matched the rebounding average you found impressive for '07 Lebron which he accomplished as a forward, while '03 T-Mac was playing mostly guard) and probably the best passer and playmaker that wasn't as a point guard at this time.[/QUOTE]
definately. i respect what mcgrady was able to do out on the basketball court in 2003. but in 2005 he contributed to a winning cause, and played alot better in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]1, which is how much you'd expect facing a 61 win Suns team that featured Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion in their primes in addition to 6th man of the year Leandro Barbosa and fine group of role players in Raja Bell, Boris Diaw and Kurt Thomas. How many games did you expect Kobe to win surrounded by Lamar Odom(with a bad shoulder), Luke Walton, Kwame Brown, Jordan Farmar and Shammond Williams.[/QUOTE]
lamar odom with a bad shoulder somehow managed to step up alot more than bryant, and almost outplay him. i expected alot more from bryant individually, considering what position his team was in, and playing against a top 3 paced team in the league.
[QUOTE]The difference in those categories were even smaller. Just 0.1 fewer turnovers, 0.2 more steals and 0.2 more blocks.[/QUOTE]
so you are admitting there was a difference, and that the only advantage bryant had was ppg while lebron had rpg, apg, spg, bpg, and topg?
[QUOTE]It is important to me because I've yet to see a player in a role as ball-dominant as Lebron's even in Cleveland win a championship.[/QUOTE]
lol trash statement. its important to me because i've never seen such trash make it to the nba finals.
[QUOTE]Nah, more proof Kobe was a much better offensive player at this time, especially considering the massive disparity in their teams offenses, no matter what category you consider is the best for judging this. We can be realistic and acknowledge that neither player had particularly good offensive support, yet Kobe's Lakers were much, much better offensively.[/QUOTE]
only due to the offensive system
[QUOTE]As a rebounder? Pretty much. I mean, he was always above average just based on how many of them he got, but it's only been very recently that I've started to notice his rebounding the way you'd think with the numbers he puts up.[/QUOTE]
yeh well he was putting up the same numbers in '07 as he was "a few" years ago, as i pointed out
[QUOTE]The competition wasn't that much different than what Lamar Odom faced without Kobe.[/QUOTE]
maybe true, but i only bring up that argument when you do so it doesn't matter. too many other factors can be attributed to these missed games.
[QUOTE]Nah, but I'll reluctantly give him 3rd.[/QUOTE]
lol nobody else is close. duncan, james, daylight, mcgrady, kidd, nowitzki.
[QUOTE]Nope, this difference is purely circumstantial, it's a difference that was a result of a superior supporting cast and an inferior finals opponent.[/QUOTE]
trash statement once again. bill russell doesn't deserve to be top 100 due to superior supporting cast. :hammerhead:
[QUOTE]Consistency is part of how I judge a playoff run.[/QUOTE]
'09 bryant was consistently better than '08 bryant.
[QUOTE]Orlando was a fine team, though Dwight was not top 2, more like top 4-5 and I wouldn't rate Lewis or Turkoglu as high as you did either. But the point is, Orlando was certainly not on par with the '08 Celtics, they barely beat the Celtics without KG in '09 and then lost to the 2010 Celtics the next year.[/QUOTE]
howard was better in '09, lewis was barely recognisable compared to his '09 version, vince carter was nowhere near as good as turkoglu, and rafer alston was gone.
[QUOTE]That level would probably require the highest level a player has reached given the lack of support he had. I'm not sure 1994 Hakeem, 2000 Shaq, '67 Wilt, peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird ect. would have won either. In fact, I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
more what ifs :roll: