Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[QUOTE=Shep]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]

What actually happened was Nash playing at a level far beyond what Marion did even in Marion's best season('06), much less '07.

[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]

I'm not a big fan of Arenas either, but he did have a very good season and led Washington to a better record when he was in the lineup than Kidd did. They both finished 41-41.

[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]

Houston had far better players around Moses than Orlando did around T-Mac. I'd take Calvin Murphy, Robert Reid, Rudy T, Mike Dunleavy, Allen Leavell and Billy Paultz over Drew Gooden and Gordan Giricek in their rookie years no less, 34 year old Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, Pat Garrity, Andrew DeClercq and Shawn Kemp doing his best Oliver Miller impression.

Wow, when I say that Magic cast out loud it sounds even worse than I initially remembered, and that's saying something.

[QUOTE]that excellent 9 man rotation only managed to win them 8 more games than the orlando magic[/QUOTE]

Thanks to an unbelievable season by T-Mac. He put them on his back and carried that type of garbage about as far as you can. And 8 wins is significant.

[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]

Wow, Gooden could be better for 1 game? Give that man a 100 million dollar deal. Lets put it this way, if your second best player is Drew Gooden, much less as a rookie, you're in trouble.

Darrell Armstrong was 4 years removed from that 6th man award. He was quite old by NBA standards at 34, a pretty good role player, nothing more, and he was among Orlando's best players.

[QUOTE]ofcourse he was a great player, top 8 infact[/QUOTE]

No worse than top 4. The only players who were better were Duncan, Garnett and Shaq, and T-Mac had a case for being top 2.

[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]

He had a much better team in '05. Doesn't mean he was better. Aside from Yao who was much better than any of his Orlando teammates, he still had a cast of role players that is easily on par with that Orlando team such as Mutombo, Bob Sura, David Wesley, Juwan Howard, Jon Barry and Mike James.

In fact, even that case of role players is better, much less Yao. Then consider he went from having one of the 10 worst defenses in '03 to the 4th best in '05 which alone could account for the difference in wins.

Not only that, his '05 Rocket team was 7th in 3P% at 36.1% while his '03 Magic were 9th at 35.7% this is despite T-Mac shooting 3s much better in '03 at 38.6% with 2.3 3PM vs 32.6% with 1.8 3PM in '05.

His '05 Rocket team also outrebounded opponents by 1.7 rpg while his '03 Magic team got outrebounded by 2.6 rpg.

So forget casts on paper, just look at the results. The vastly superior defense, the superior rebounding and superior shooters around him more than makes up for the 9 win difference, and ultimately he lost in the first round in 7 games in both seasons.

[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]

Odom didn't do anything particularly special, he was fine, but Kobe was clearly better.

[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]

All of those differences are very minor as I stated while Kobe held a big scoring advantage, plus, stats come easier in a ball-dominant role like Lebron's, although I will say in fairness that Kobe was not as good in that type of role as Lebron, but Lebron clearly wasn't nearly as good of a player for a system like the triangle as Kobe.

[QUOTE]lol trash statement. its important to me because i've never seen such trash make it to the nba finals.[/QUOTE]

They faced trash except for Detroit, and Lebron had an elite defensive team and rebounding team around him in addition to the role player stepping up huge in key games, it's not that remarkable other than game 5 if you watched how it happened.

[QUOTE]only due to the offensive system[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Lebron with that hideous jump shot and an inability to play without the ball couldn't have been nearly as successful in that system. He would have been a bad fit much like Gary Payton and Glen Rice, though he would have gotten by more than them on talent alone.

[QUOTE]yeh well he was putting up the same numbers in '07 as he was "a few" years ago, as i pointed out[/QUOTE]

I didn't think Lebron was as impressive of a rebounder as the numbers suggest most of his career anyway. He's obviously above average for his position, but it was really during these past playoffs that he really impressed me in that area.

[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]

Agreed, so then how about not jumping to conclusions such as Odom being better without Kobe based on numbers in 4 games?

[QUOTE]lol nobody else is close. duncan, james, daylight, mcgrady, kidd, nowitzki.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Kidd and T-Mac above Kobe, Dirk and Nash as well as Lebron being above Kobe.

[QUOTE]trash statement once again. bill russell doesn't deserve to be top 100 due to superior supporting cast. :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

Trash analogy.

[QUOTE]'09 bryant was consistently better than '08 bryant.[/QUOTE]

Consistently worse.

[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]

Regardless of the teams on paper, Orlando ended up winning 59 games, just like '09, and had the best point differential in the league, better than their '09 point differential.

And Boston wasn't the same team as they were in '08. KG went from one of the top 4 players in the game to a nice player, but top 15-20 range, Pierce fell off slightly, their defense wasn't as historically dominant, they didn't have James Posey, though Rondo did really improve becoming one of the top 15-20 players as opposed to just a solid point guard in '08, while Perkins also improved and Allen seemed more comfortable in '10 than '08.

ShaqAttack laying the smackdown. :oldlol: I'm loving this. :bowdown:

[QUOTE]What actually happened was Nash playing at a level far beyond what Marion did even in Marion's best season('06), much less '07.[/QUOTE]
only in the playoffs did nash outplay marion. marion was the suns best player in the regular season.
[QUOTE]I'm not a big fan of Arenas either, but he did have a very good season and led Washington to a better record when he was in the lineup than Kidd did. They both finished 41-41.[/QUOTE]
he had a good season, as did kidd, but what separated the two was what happened in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]Houston had far better players around Moses than Orlando did around T-Mac. I'd take Calvin Murphy, Robert Reid, Rudy T, Mike Dunleavy, Allen Leavell and Billy Paultz over Drew Gooden and Gordan Giricek in their rookie years no less, 34 year old Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, Pat Garrity, Andrew DeClercq and Shawn Kemp doing his best Oliver Miller impression.

Wow, when I say that Magic cast out loud it sounds even worse than I initially remembered, and that's saying something.[/QUOTE]
and they still finished below .500 and made the finals.
[QUOTE]Thanks to an unbelievable season by T-Mac. He put them on his back and carried that type of garbage about as far as you can. And 8 wins is significant.[/QUOTE]
you should expect a pretty close series in an 8 win difference, 1v8 is almost always separated by more than that. i respect what mcgrady achieved that season and ranked him accordingly, 8th. i will admit that alot of players had great seasons that year, and if tmac had done what he did in '03 in another year he might have been ranked higher.
[QUOTE]Wow, Gooden could be better for 1 game? Give that man a 100 million dollar deal. Lets put it this way, if your second best player is Drew Gooden, much less as a rookie, you're in trouble[/QUOTE]
that 1 game was the most important game of the playoffs and you are dismissing it as nothing :roll:
[QUOTE]Darrell Armstrong was 4 years removed from that 6th man award. He was quite old by NBA standards at 34, a pretty good role player, nothing more, and he was among Orlando's best players.[/QUOTE]
good locker room guy who was key to their success. in orlando's 3 postseason victories he averaged 16 points, 3 rebounds, and 6 assists.
[QUOTE]No worse than top 4. The only players who were better were Duncan, Garnett and Shaq, and T-Mac had a case for being top 2.[/QUOTE]
you aren't top 2 on a .500 team, lets not get anymore ridiculous than you already are. so lets put that filth to bed. top 8 is worse than top 4, so yes he was worse than top 4. the better players than tmac were duncan, garnett, o'neal, kidd, bryant, nowitzki, and wallace.
[QUOTE]He had a much better team in '05. Doesn't mean he was better. Aside from Yao who was much better than any of his Orlando teammates, he still had a cast of role players that is easily on par with that Orlando team such as Mutombo, Bob Sura, David Wesley, Juwan Howard, Jon Barry and Mike James.

In fact, even that case of role players is better, much less Yao. Then consider he went from having one of the 10 worst defenses in '03 to the 4th best in '05 which alone could account for the difference in wins.

Not only that, his '05 Rocket team was 7th in 3P% at 36.1% while his '03 Magic were 9th at 35.7% this is despite T-Mac shooting 3s much better in '03 at 38.6% with 2.3 3PM vs 32.6% with 1.8 3PM in '05.

His '05 Rocket team also outrebounded opponents by 1.7 rpg while his '03 Magic team got outrebounded by 2.6 rpg.

So forget casts on paper, just look at the results. The vastly superior defense, the superior rebounding and superior shooters around him more than makes up for the 9 win difference, and ultimately he lost in the first round in 7 games in both seasons.[/QUOTE]
forget results on paper. tmac performed much better in the first round, dispite losing in the first round.

all that has to be looked at is the western conference that year:
phoenix: 62 wins
san antonio: 59 wins
dallas: 58 wins
seattle: 52 wins
houston: 51 wins
sacramento: 50 wins
denver: 49 wins
memphis: 45 wins
minnesota: 44 wins

6 teams with over 50 wins, 3 teams with 58 or more wins.

in orlando, 2 years earlier, the eastern conference's best team detroit won 50 games.
[QUOTE]Odom didn't do anything particularly special, he was fine, but Kobe was clearly better.[/QUOTE]
kobe was better, but only slightly. meanwhile odom clearly stepped up alot more. odom went from 15.9ppg, 9.8rpg, 4.8apg, 0.9spg, 0.6bpg, 2.9topg on 47%fg to 19.4ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.2apg, 0.4spg, 1.2bpg, 2.0topg on 48%fg.
[QUOTE]All of those differences are very minor as I stated while Kobe held a big scoring advantage, plus, stats come easier in a ball-dominant role like Lebron's, although I will say in fairness that Kobe was not as good in that type of role as Lebron, but Lebron clearly wasn't nearly as good of a player for a system like the triangle as Kobe.[/QUOTE]
lebron had to be ball dominant for that team to succeed, i've already destroyed this trash. and kobe's advantage in ppg is made up by lebron's advantage in everything else.
[QUOTE]They faced trash except for Detroit, and Lebron had an elite defensive team and rebounding team around him in addition to the role player stepping up huge in key games, it's not that remarkable other than game 5 if you watched how it happened.[/QUOTE]
lol a team that just comfortably defeated 47 win toronto featuring the best point guard in the league, 2 guard vince carter just coming off a 25/6/4 series, and exciting slasher small forward richard jefferson coming off a 22/5/3 series is not trash.
[QUOTE]Lebron with that hideous jump shot and an inability to play without the ball couldn't have been nearly as successful in that system. He would have been a bad fit much like Gary Payton and Glen Rice, though he would have gotten by more than them on talent alone.[/QUOTE]
kobe with lebron's cast wouldn't have made the playoffs :roll:
[QUOTE]I didn't think Lebron was as impressive of a rebounder as the numbers suggest most of his career anyway. He's obviously above average for his position, but it was really during these past playoffs that he really impressed me in that area.[/QUOTE]
lol how many rebounds does a small forward have to get to impress you?
[QUOTE]Agreed, so then how about not jumping to conclusions such as Odom being better without Kobe based on numbers in 4 games?[/QUOTE]
only if you agree to never bring up how a player or a team performed while a player was out again.
[QUOTE]at Kidd and T-Mac above Kobe, Dirk and Nash as well as Lebron being above Kobe.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
[QUOTE]Trash analogy.[/QUOTE]
:(
[QUOTE]Consistently worse[/QUOTE]
consistently better
[QUOTE]Regardless of the teams on paper, Orlando ended up winning 59 games, just like '09, and had the best point differential in the league, better than their '09 point differential.

And Boston wasn't the same team as they were in '08. KG went from one of the top 4 players in the game to a nice player, but top 15-20 range, Pierce fell off slightly, their defense wasn't as historically dominant, they didn't have James Posey, though Rondo did really improve becoming one of the top 15-20 players as opposed to just a solid point guard in '08, while Perkins also improved and Allen seemed more comfortable in '10 than '08.[/QUOTE]
nobody expected the magic to beat the celtics, who won 62 games. the celtics were no longer just the big 3, with rajon rondo stepping up to be one of the best 7 players in the world. kendrick perkins also stepped up huge in the playoffs and played like one of the league's best centers.

[QUOTE=Shep]only in the playoffs did nash outplay marion. marion was the suns best player in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Nash had the best regular season of his career and the best a point guard has had in the 2 plus decades since Magic's first retirement with the exception of maybe Chris Paul in '08 and '09.

[QUOTE]he had a good season, as did kidd, but what separated the two was what happened in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Arenas didn't play in the playoffs due to an injury. If you want to drop him because of that then that's fine.

[QUOTE]and they still finished below .500 and made the finals.[/QUOTE]

They faced another 40-42 team in the WCF and regardless of Houston's record, they had an elite player themselves like Orlando did, but unlike Orlando, they had some solid talent around him, remember Calvin Murphy dropped like 45 to eliminate the Spurs?

[QUOTE]you should expect a pretty close series in an 8 win difference, 1v8 is almost always separated by more than that. i respect what mcgrady achieved that season and ranked him accordingly, 8th. i will admit that alot of players had great seasons that year, and if tmac had done what he did in '03 in another year he might have been ranked higher.[/QUOTE]

8th is just laughable considering the type of season T-Mac had that year, but you are right about a lot of players having great seasons. Duncan, Garnett, Shaq and Kobe especially, while Kidd had his best year and Dirk took his game to another level.

[QUOTE]that 1 game was the most important game of the playoffs and you are dismissing it as nothing :roll:[/QUOTE]

It was important obviously, but it doesn't change who Gooden was as a player. Gooden was talented, but not a great player. I won't say he didn't belong on an NBA roster, but this is a rookie version of the same player who was part of the '07 Cavs team you called "trash" except Gooden was arguably the second best player on this team, while he was no more than 4th best on the '07 Cavs and that Cavs team was also the polar opposite of Orlando in defense and rebounding, they were elite in both categories while Orlando sucked in both categories.

So what do you think a cast that can't defend or rebound and has a rookie Drew Gooden as the 2nd best player is? Trash.

[QUOTE]good locker room guy who was key to their success. in orlando's 3 postseason victories he averaged 16 points, 3 rebounds, and 6 assists.[/QUOTE]

Decent role player. but you don't want him to be one of your top 4 players unless your top 2 players are Shaq and Kobe. Or your top 3 are Lebron/Wade/Bosh and even then, they had a better 4th guy then '03 Armstrong.

He was really one of only 4 decent players Orlando had on their postseason roster along with T-Mac and Gooden and Giricek in their rookie years. That isn't going to get it done vs a Detroit team that dominates defensively and has far more quality players than that in Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Cliff Robinson, Chauncey Billups, Corliss Williamson, Mehmet Okur, Chucky Atkins and Jon Barry.

Detroit had 3 bench players who would probably start on Orlando and 4 starters who certainly would.

[QUOTE]you aren't top 2 on a .500 team, lets not get anymore ridiculous than you already are. so lets put that filth to bed. top 8 is worse than top 4, so yes he was worse than top 4. the better players than tmac were duncan, garnett, o'neal, kidd, bryant, nowitzki, and wallace.[/QUOTE]

Some players have been top 2 and plenty have at least been close to it on .500 teams.

Can't argue with Duncan, Garnett or Shaq, but I will destroy your other selections.

Kobe and T-Mac were very close, if you caught them on any random night, either could look better, but T-Mac wins due to a much more consistent season, better numbers even with nobody to take the pressure off of him and better team success considering the team he had.

Dirk wasn't the all around player T-Mac was. T-Mac did the thing that Dirk did best(scoring) better than Dirk did while also being probably the best passer and playmaker at his position. His defense was certainly no worse than Dirk's and the only advantage Dirk had was rebounding. And a power forward grabbing 3 more rebounds than a shooting guard isn't enough to make up for everything else.

Kidd is more difficult because it depends on your preference. He brought intangibles that T-Mac didn't and was a better passer and defender while also improving his shooting and scoring. But considering T-Mac was the best perimeter scorer in the league and the best playmaker at his own position, he was the more dominant player than Kidd, especially since he was much more efficient.

Ben Wallace? :roll: I like Wallace as much of the next guy, he made my top 15 for this year, iirc, but a guy whose exclusively a defender and rebounder isn't going to impact a game more than the game's best offensive player on the perimeter.

[QUOTE]forget results on paper. tmac performed much better in the first round, dispite losing in the first round.[/QUOTE]

This is a fact, still not enough, though.

[QUOTE]all that has to be looked at is the western conference that year:
phoenix: 62 wins
san antonio: 59 wins
dallas: 58 wins
seattle: 52 wins
houston: 51 wins
sacramento: 50 wins
denver: 49 wins
memphis: 45 wins
minnesota: 44 wins

6 teams with over 50 wins, 3 teams with 58 or more wins.

in orlando, 2 years earlier, the eastern conference's best team detroit won 50 games.[/QUOTE]

True, the conference was a lot better, but this difference in the support he had was immense.

[QUOTE]kobe was better, but only slightly. meanwhile odom clearly stepped up alot more. odom went from 15.9ppg, 9.8rpg, 4.8apg, 0.9spg, 0.6bpg, 2.9topg on 47%fg to 19.4ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.2apg, 0.4spg, 1.2bpg, 2.0topg on 48%fg.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Kobe being slightly better, and again with this "stepped up more" nonsense.

[QUOTE]lebron had to be ball dominant for that team to succeed, i've already destroyed this trash. and kobe's advantage in ppg is made up by lebron's advantage in everything else.[/QUOTE]

Lebron had to be ball-dominant because he couldn't play off the ball, though a clueless offensive coach deserves some of the blame because the same thing happened in LA when he replaced Phil, though not to the same extent. However, Lebron's coach was more of a positive than a negative because Brown being an excellent defensive coach was essential to Cleveland's success.

Kobe's playmaking was much closer to Lebron's this year than Lebron's scoring was to Kobe's scoring. Lebron grabbing 1 more rpg as a forward than Kobe got as a guard is a non-factor to me, and defense is not much of an advantage for either player in this comparison.

[QUOTE]lol a team that just comfortably defeated 47 win toronto featuring the best point guard in the league, 2 guard vince carter just coming off a 25/6/4 series, and exciting slasher small forward richard jefferson coming off a 22/5/3 series is not trash.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at best PG in the league, and that team is pretty much trash when they go .500 and their best big men are Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone.

[QUOTE]kobe with lebron's cast wouldn't have made the playoffs :roll:[/QUOTE]

:roll: It's also funny how you point out the difference in conferences when it works for your T-Mac argument, but not now when it doesn't work for your Lebron/Kobe argument. Kobe probably wouldn't have trouble making the playoffs backed with a top 4 defense and a team that was +3.7 rpg because of how capable Kobe is of carrying an offense. I do think Lebron is more of a natural in a ball-dominant role so I'm not sure he has as much success in that role, but I prefer a player who can play off the ball better like Kobe and I have my doubts Lebron makes the playoffs with Kobe's cast in the West.

[QUOTE]lol how many rebounds does a small forward have to get to impress you?[/QUOTE]

I have to watch them and be impressed by their rebounding.

[QUOTE]only if you agree to never bring up how a player or a team performed while a player was out again.[/QUOTE]

If it's a significant sample size(about 10 games or more) then I will, but I agree that a few games doesn't tell you much.

[QUOTE]nobody expected the magic to beat the celtics, who won 62 games. the celtics were no longer just the big 3, with rajon rondo stepping up to be one of the best 7 players in the world. kendrick perkins also stepped up huge in the playoffs and played like one of the league's best centers.[/QUOTE]

I thought Orlando would beat Boston, and I thought Cleveland might as well(though what I mainly remember is rooting against Cleveland because I thought they might make Lebron leave and come to NY.....he left, but not to NY :facepalm )

Rondo was nowhere near a top 7 player, although you're right that they were no longer just a big 3 and both Rondo and Perkins did really step up, I'll give you that.

I still think the 2008 Celtics were much better, and the 2009 Celtics would have been as well if KG hadn't gone down.

You two really need your own thread lol

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]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.[/quote]
The thing is though is that Karl played at a high level for a very long period of time. He may not have peaked as high as Charles did but he surely sustained a heck of a lot longer than he did.

I personally think Malone and Barkley's peaks are close. I don't know why people keep acting like Barkley was clear cut better at his peak because he wasn't. Both of them were considered top 2-5 players in the league during their primes/peaks. It's not like Malone was outside of the top 5 while Barkley was in it, both of them were in it. They were viewed the same from what I see.

[QUOTE]I can say that this version of Barkley was a better scorer than Malone ever was,[/QUOTE]
I disagree for several reasons. I'm going to guess that your argument is that Barkley didn't need a Stockton-like PG to score and excel. Truthfully, Cheeks, KJ, and all the other PGs he played with were really great PGs as well. Some would argue that KJ at his peak may have been better than Stockton at his.

The main reason why I disagree was that Karl could score within the flow of the offense better than Charles could.

As I said, I do think Barkley reminds me of Dantley a bit in a sense that he was incredibly ball-dominant and needed to be ball-dominant in order to score and score efficiently. They put up sexy numbers but it's not necessarily good for the team. I'm pretty sure you know all about Dantley and how he even though he put up sexy numbers, he wasn't really helping the team because of how long he took the score and how ball-dominant he was. I think Barkley was quite similar.

If we are just going to argue who is the better scorer based on ppg, FG%, TS%, are you also going to say that Adrian Dantley was a better scorer than Michael Jordan was? Because I think we all know the answer to that question...

Karl was also a better finisher and that's huge especially for bigs because bigs are finishers and suppose to be finishers.

[QUOTE]a better rebounder [/QUOTE]
Barkley's rebounding is a bit overrated. If you look at Barkley's TRB% he really is not as impressive as many people think and say he is on that end. Barkley is still the better rebounder but I don't think it's some far away thing. It's not like Malone was like Sheed or something. Malone was a pretty good rebounder too.

[quote]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]
The main reason why I would go with Malone is his portability. Malone could fit in on any team as any option, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option etc. it doesn't matter. The reason why Malone was so portable was because of his versatility. Malone can do just about everything out there. He can spot-up, rebound, defend, finish, etc.

Barkley on the other hand was more limited and he can't really play defense whether he tried or not, his size really limited him. Barkley also needed more time and ball-usage in order to score and succeed offensively.

Malone's portability/his ability to fit in on just about any team and with just about every player is the main reason why I would go with him.

I think Barkley needs a specific team built around him in order to succeed.

Barkley for most of his career did play with better teammates and on better teams than Malone did. Malone played on top heavy teams. The Jazz never had too much outside of Malone and Stockton and when they finally did they ran into Michael Jordan.

Everyone outside of ISH knows Malone was better than Barkley, period. This has never been much of a debate and never will be.

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]The thing is though is that Karl played at a high level for a very long period of time. He may not have peaked as high as Charles did but he surely sustained a heck of a lot longer than he did.[/QUOTE]

If you choose Karl because of longevity, I'm fine with that. The difference is that Barkley had good longevity for an elite player since he was one for at least a decade or so, and a very normal length prime of 5-6 seasons, while Malone was just superhuman in that regard. Malone has a longevity advantage over just about anyone.

[QUOTE]I personally think Malone and Barkley's peaks are close. I don't know why people keep acting like Barkley was clear cut better at his peak because he wasn't. Both of them were considered top 2-5 players in the league during their primes/peaks. It's not like Malone was outside of the top 5 while Barkley was in it, both of them were in it. They were viewed the same from what I see.[/QUOTE]

Both being top 5 doesn't mean they were the same.

Malone at his best simply wasn't quite as highly regarded as Barkley. Regul8r covered this earlier in the thread.

[QUOTE]I disagree for several reasons. I'm going to guess that your argument is that Barkley didn't need a Stockton-like PG to score and excel. Truthfully, Cheeks, KJ, and all the other PGs he played with were really great PGs as well. Some would argue that KJ at his peak may have been better than Stockton at his.[/QUOTE]

I already stated why I think Barkley was a better player than Malone. He was the better scorer, better passer and better rebounder. Just more dominant, you had to double Barkley more than you had to double Malone, and he was more likely to get his own high percentage shot whenever he wanted.

This doesn't mean Malone was some scrub, Malone was great. Nobody is disputing that, I just think Barkley was better.

As far as the Stockton comment, well, I don't think Stockton "made" Malone. Karl would have been great no matter what. But I think it's clear that both Malone and Stockton benefited from each other as much as star players can and were both in the perfect system for their talents.

I am one of those who think peak KJ, or even prime KJ was better than Stockton, but Barkley didn't play with peak KJ, and more importantly, it's clear that it didn't change Barkley as an individual player.

2 of Barkley's 3 best years were '90 and '91, and he had a solid point guard in '90(Johnny Dawkins), but his point guard in '91 was Rickey Green.

[QUOTE]The main reason why I disagree was that Karl could score within the flow of the offense better than Charles could.[/QUOTE]

This is a valid point. Malone didn't need the ball to be effective. In the late 80's and early 90's, defenders would front Malone and Stockton would throw the pass over the top for an easy lay up and of course everyone knows about the screen/rolls.

But while Malone was one of the great finishers, he did get more easy baskets in the regular season than the playoffs, and there aren't as many of those baskets available in the playoffs. So there was something about Malone's game that wasn't generally as effective in the playoffs and I can't say that about Barkley.

Though I will say that regardless of Stockton, Malone got great position, especially when he was young and played more of a power game. So when he'd get that position, he didn't need a great point guard to make the pass, Malone had done most of the work in those situations and just needed a simple pass. So while some may misinterpret that as Stockton spoon-feeding Malone, it was really one of the things that would be a constant for Malone wherever he played.

And Malone did also seem to hold the ball less than Barkley when either of them were posting up.

[QUOTE]As I said, I do think Barkley reminds me of Dantley a bit in a sense that he was incredibly ball-dominant and needed to be ball-dominant in order to score and score efficiently. They put up sexy numbers but it's not necessarily good for the team. I'm pretty sure you know all about Dantley and how he even though he put up sexy numbers, he wasn't really helping the team because of how long he took the score and how ball-dominant he was. I think Barkley was quite similar.[/QUOTE]

Despite being a big Barkley fan, in the interest of objectivity, I have mentioned many times that Charles had a habit of holding the ball, and it could sometimes get him into trouble. Holding the ball is something people overlook. But Dantley is an extreme example, imo. Barkley's habit wasn't that bad, and unlike Dantley, Barkley was an excellent passer.

[QUOTE]If we are just going to argue who is the better scorer based on ppg, FG%, TS%, are you also going to say that Adrian Dantley was a better scorer than Michael Jordan was? Because I think we all know the answer to that question...[/QUOTE]

Stats are not why I'm picking Barkley, especially since Malone's stats were at least as good as I mentioned. Besides, were Dantley's scoring stats even better than MJ since MJ easily topped him in ppg?

[QUOTE]Barkley's rebounding is a bit overrated. If you look at Barkley's TRB% he really is not as impressive as many people think and say he is on that end. Barkley is still the better rebounder but I don't think it's some far away thing. It's not like Malone was like Sheed or something. Malone was a pretty good rebounder too.[/QUOTE]

I agree, Malone was a very solid rebounder himself. I don't really think Barkley's rebounding is overrated, though. Some may rank him as a better rebounder than they should because of his size, which is irrelevant to how effective of a basketball player you are.

But one thing that makes Barkley's rebounding numbers deceptive is that he had a few seasons when he was playing more small forward, and throughout his career, it wasn't uncommon for Barkley to be in lineups where he was more of a small forward, yet he still never fell below 10 rebounds.

Charles did have some phenomenal seasons in TRB%, look at '86 when he played with Moses, '87 and his years with Houston. Amazingly, Barkley's TRB% was 2nd in the league in '97 and '99 when he was 34 and 36 and playing with Hakeem both years who was getting 9-10 rpg himself.

[QUOTE]The main reason why I would go with Malone is his portability. Malone could fit in on any team as any option, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option etc. it doesn't matter. The reason why Malone was so portable was because of his versatility. Malone can do just about everything out there. He can spot-up, rebound, defend, finish, etc.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point, I did like how Malone fit in the triangle and he barely had any time to learn it, and part of that is because of his ability to shoot jumpers, his passing and ability without the ball. That's not an easy offense to learn, Phil praised Malone's willingness to learn the offense and you know this is genuine because Phil is more than willing to call out guys who didn't learn the offense such as Glen Rice and Gary Payton.

Hell, the flex offense that Utah ran was not an offense everywhere learns either.

But I think you're selling Barkley short here. He did adjust his game in Phoenix when he had more talent around him. I noticed him shooting more jumpers and I thought he held the ball less. He didn't have trouble fitting in on those teams.

Barkley also fit in with all of that talent on the '86 Sixers, including Moses who was not only a low post player like Barkley, but as big of a black hole as you'll find.

[QUOTE]Barkley on the other hand was more limited and he can't really play defense whether he tried or not, his size really limited him. Barkley also needed more time and ball-usage in order to score and succeed offensively.[/QUOTE]

True, Malone being a much better defender is a valid argument to make for him. I do think having Barkley at power forward made it tough to have an elite defense since interior defense is so important.

[QUOTE]Malone's portability/his ability to fit in on just about any team and with just about every player is the main reason why I would go with him.[/QUOTE]

For an elite player who will likely be the first option on a team, this isn't as important to me as Barkley being superior at getting his own shot whenever he got the ball unless he was doubled.

[QUOTE]I think Barkley needs a specific team built around him in order to succeed.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there's much evidence to support this. He went to a Suns team that was already pretty much built in Phoenix and had great success. I think Malone is much more of a player who needs a specific situation to be at his best. As I mentioned, Barkley also fit in on the '86 Sixers, and broke out as an individual player, that team was also pretty much in place before they drafted him.

[QUOTE]Barkley for most of his career did play with better teammates and on better teams than Malone did. Malone played on top heavy teams. The Jazz never had too much outside of Malone and Stockton and when they finally did they ran into Michael Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Malone clearly had better teams. Karl had contending teams year after year, while Barkley didn't get one until the last year of his prime at 30 years old, and made a great run at a title that year. Of course, Barkley was on a contending team in his rookie year, but that's a different situation.

Karl's teams were a bit top heavy, but you can win that way, and some of them had some quality players after Malone/Stockton. The teams were well built in the late 90's when they had their finals teams.

But you did explain your thinking with some valid arguments, so I have to give you credit even though I still disagree.

[QUOTE]Nash had the best regular season of his career and the best a point guard has had in the 2 plus decades since Magic's first retirement with the exception of maybe Chris Paul in '08 and '09.[/QUOTE]
filth statement. every year there has been atleast 1 point guard with a better regular season than steve nash in 2007.
[QUOTE]Arenas didn't play in the playoffs due to an injury. If you want to drop him because of that then that's fine.[/QUOTE]
i didn't drop him, he stayed where he was. kidd, however, was promoted.
[QUOTE]They faced another 40-42 team in the WCF and regardless of Houston's record, they had an elite player themselves like Orlando did, but unlike Orlando, they had some solid talent around him, remember Calvin Murphy dropped like 45 to eliminate the Spurs?[/QUOTE]
they also faced and beat defending champion los angeles lakers in the first round, then they faced and beat 2nd seed san antonio, on top of beating 62 win boston in the finals. the fact remains. it had happened in the past with a team with a worse record than the orlando magic.
[QUOTE]8th is just laughable considering the type of season T-Mac had that year, but you are right about a lot of players having great seasons. Duncan, Garnett, Shaq and Kobe especially, while Kidd had his best year and Dirk took his game to another level.[/QUOTE]
he can't possibly be ranked any higher given the circumstances, unfortunately for tmac.
[QUOTE]It was important obviously, but it doesn't change who Gooden was as a player. Gooden was talented, but not a great player. I won't say he didn't belong on an NBA roster, but this is a rookie version of the same player who was part of the '07 Cavs team you called "trash" except Gooden was arguably the second best player on this team, while he was no more than 4th best on the '07 Cavs and that Cavs team was also the polar opposite of Orlando in defense and rebounding, they were elite in both categories while Orlando sucked in both categories.

So what do you think a cast that can't defend or rebound and has a rookie Drew Gooden as the 2nd best player is? Trash.[/QUOTE]
ofcourse, but at the end of the day players are ranked on what they achieve and how they are able to perform. the players on the cavs roster that were better than gooden were only slightly better than him, and lebron led his trash team to the nba finals and was the second most impressive player out of every individual who participated in the playoffs, mcgrady on the other hand lost in the first round after going up 3-1 mostly due to his lack of showing up, and wasn't even the most impressive player on his own team.
[QUOTE]Decent role player. but you don't want him to be one of your top 4 players unless your top 2 players are Shaq and Kobe. Or your top 3 are Lebron/Wade/Bosh and even then, they had a better 4th guy then '03 Armstrong.

He was really one of only 4 decent players Orlando had on their postseason roster along with T-Mac and Gooden and Giricek in their rookie years. That isn't going to get it done vs a Detroit team that dominates defensively and has far more quality players than that in Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Cliff Robinson, Chauncey Billups, Corliss Williamson, Mehmet Okur, Chucky Atkins and Jon Barry.

Detroit had 3 bench players who would probably start on Orlando and 4 starters who certainly would.[/QUOTE]
the pistons only had 4 players that were better than armstrong: wallace, billups, hamilton, and robinson. i have no idea why you are mentioning guys like okur and atkins.
[QUOTE]Some players have been top 2 and plenty have at least been close to it on .500 teams.[/QUOTE]
i'll give you moses malone for what he achieved in the 1981 playoffs. off the top of my head there isn't anyone else.
[QUOTE]Can't argue with Duncan, Garnett or Shaq, but I will destroy your other selections.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]Kobe and T-Mac were very close, if you caught them on any random night, either could look better, but T-Mac wins due to a much more consistent season, better numbers even with nobody to take the pressure off of him and better team success considering the team he had.[/QUOTE]
i'll agree that they were very close. but bryant wins due being much more successful, contributing to a winning cause, kobe was actually the lakers best player in the regular season, better numbers even though he had to share the ball with shaquille o'neal and his 28ppg.
[QUOTE]Dirk wasn't the all around player T-Mac was. T-Mac did the thing that Dirk did best(scoring) better than Dirk did while also being probably the best passer and playmaker at his position. His defense was certainly no worse than Dirk's and the only advantage Dirk had was rebounding. And a power forward grabbing 3 more rebounds than a shooting guard isn't enough to make up for everything else.[/QUOTE]
dirk was better in the regular season, and also in the playoffs. he was easily the best player on his 60-22 dallas mavericks who also made the conference finals, who lost to the eventual champion san antonio spurs, the same series in which he went down to an injury and was forced to miss the final 3 games of that series.

dirk averaged 29.9ppg, 8.9rpg, 1.6apg, 1.6spg, and 0.7bpg on 52%fg, 56%3p, and 90%ft against the portland trail blazers including a 46 point 10 rebound performance in game 1 on 16-27 from the field, 4-5 from downtown, and 10-11 from the free throw line.

after a grueling 7 game series against the powerful portland trail blazers outfit, next up was 59 win sacramento. dirk responded with 20.7ppg, 14.3rpg, 2.9apg, 0.9spg, and 1.3bpg including a huge game 7 in which he scored 30, and pulled down 19 rebounds.
[QUOTE]Kidd is more difficult because it depends on your preference. He brought intangibles that T-Mac didn't and was a better passer and defender while also improving his shooting and scoring. But considering T-Mac was the best perimeter scorer in the league and the best playmaker at his own position, he was the more dominant player than Kidd, especially since he was much more efficient.[/QUOTE]
i will take kidd, who led his team to a 12-2 record en route to the nba finals, and was able to take 2 games off the san antonio spurs. kidd averaged 19/7/9/2 against the milwaukee bucks including a 22/11/11/3 triple double in the elimination game, 19/9/9/2 in the 4-0 sweep of the boston celtics including 29/10/8/2 in the elimination game, 24/10/6/3 in the 4-0 sweep of the detroit pistons including 26/12/7/2 in the elimination game, and 20/6/8/1 against the san antonio spurs in the finals.

easy choice here.
[QUOTE]Ben Wallace? I like Wallace as much of the next guy, he made my top 15 for this year, iirc, but a guy whose exclusively a defender and rebounder isn't going to impact a game more than the game's best offensive player on the perimeter.[/QUOTE]
it is very close between wallace and mcgrady, some would almost say they were inseparable. i wouldn't though. and what separated these two players was how they performed in the playoffs. ben wallace was the best player on his team by the widest margin in the nba outside of tim duncan, tracy mcgrady, and kevin garnett, and was able to lead his cast to the eastern conference finals. wallace was one of the most dynamic nba players in the history of the game, and he took his game to another level in these playoffs.

against orlando he averaged 11.1ppg, 17.9rpg, 2.3apg, 3.1spg, and 3.3bpg. just crazy production right there, and if you haven't watched this series, i encourage you to do so and after you have watched the final game you will realise who was the better player between ben wallace and tracy mcgrady alone, you will need no further proof.

against philadelphia he averaged 6.2ppg, 13.8rpg, 1.2apg, 2.2spg, and 2.5bpg including a huge elimination game 6 on the sixers home court after both teams won all games on their home, wallace went to philadelphia and recorded 10 points, 18 rebounds, 5 steals, and 3 blocks.

he was back to his best against the nets, accumulating 9.0ppg, 17.3rpg, 1.3apg, 1.8spg, and 3.5bpg, but it wasn't enough to defeat the leagues 4th best player jason kidd and his new jersey nets.

[QUOTE]This is a fact, still not enough, though.[/QUOTE]
more than enough actually
[QUOTE]True, the conference was a lot better, but this difference in the support he had was immense.[/QUOTE]
yao was barely even a top 5 center, and besides that they were the same.
[QUOTE]at Kobe being slightly better, and again with this "stepped up more" nonsense.[/QUOTE]
bryant was only slightly better, and what don't you understand about this stepped up more "nonsense"? it is quite a clear concept.
[QUOTE]Lebron had to be ball-dominant because he couldn't play off the ball, though a clueless offensive coach deserves some of the blame because the same thing happened in LA when he replaced Phil, though not to the same extent. However, Lebron's coach was more of a positive than a negative because Brown being an excellent defensive coach was essential to Cleveland's success.[/QUOTE]
he couldn't play off the ball because cleveland couldn't afford him to play off the ball, they needed the ball in his hands to give them the best chance to win games of basketball.
[QUOTE]Kobe's playmaking was much closer to Lebron's this year than Lebron's scoring was to Kobe's scoring. Lebron grabbing 1 more rpg as a forward than Kobe got as a guard is a non-factor to me, and defense is not much of an advantage for either player in this comparison.[/QUOTE]
lebron having advantages in every other statistic makes up for his 4.3ppg scoring disadvantage.
[QUOTE]at best PG in the league, and that team is pretty much trash when they go .500 and their best big men are Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone.[/QUOTE]
that team with the best point guard in the league is a very dangerous one, especially when he was playoff experience, and when you throw in guys like the ones i mention the nets team, fresh from defeating 47 win raptors (only 3 wins from being in championship conversation :lol ), it would not matter who you have as bigmen, you will be a tough team to beat.
[QUOTE]It's also funny how you point out the difference in conferences when it works for your T-Mac argument, but not now when it doesn't work for your Lebron/Kobe argument. Kobe probably wouldn't have trouble making the playoffs backed with a top 4 defense and a team that was +3.7 rpg because of how capable Kobe is of carrying an offense. I do think Lebron is more of a natural in a ball-dominant role so I'm not sure he has as much success in that role, but I prefer a player who can play off the ball better like Kobe and I have my doubts Lebron makes the playoffs with Kobe's cast in the West.[/QUOTE]
you can use that argument if you want, i don't care. it won't make any difference due to them being so far apart its just laughable we are even talking about it.
[QUOTE]I have to watch them and be impressed by their rebounding[/QUOTE]
me too. i was very impressed.
[QUOTE]If it's a significant sample size(about 10 games or more) then I will, but I agree that a few games doesn't tell you much.[/QUOTE]
there is too many factors to consider in this case, so sample size doesn't matter.
[QUOTE]I thought Orlando would beat Boston, and I thought Cleveland might as well[/QUOTE]
me too
[QUOTE]Rondo was nowhere near a top 7 player, although you're right that they were no longer just a big 3 and both Rondo and Perkins did really step up, I'll give you that.[/QUOTE]
you rank rondo higher than 7th? i mean i know he averaged 17/10/10 along with 3 steals in the playoffs but despite that he is ranked no higher than 7th.
[QUOTE]I still think the 2008 Celtics were much better, and the 2009 Celtics would have been as well if KG hadn't gone down.[/QUOTE]
they were better, but they weren't much better. rondo's improvement in '09 was a major factor, as was kendrick perkins.

[QUOTE=WockaVodka]Everyone outside of ISH knows Malone was better than Barkley, period. This has never been much of a debate and never will be.[/QUOTE]

[B]:facepalm :no: Everyone Over Age 30 Knows Barkley was Better in his Prime...Actually...:confusedshrug: [/B]

[QUOTE=Shep]filth statement. every year there has been atleast 1 point guard with a better regular season than steve nash in 2007[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Ridiculous.

[QUOTE]they also faced and beat defending champion los angeles lakers in the first round, then they faced and beat 2nd seed san antonio, on top of beating 62 win boston in the finals. the fact remains. it had happened in the past with a team with a worse record than the orlando magic.[/QUOTE]

They lost to the Celtics in the finals, and the bottom line is that Rocket team was much more talented than the '03 Magic.

[QUOTE]he can't possibly be ranked any higher given the circumstances, unfortunately for tmac.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE]ofcourse, but at the end of the day players are ranked on what they achieve and how they are able to perform. the players on the cavs roster that were better than gooden were only slightly better than him, and lebron led his trash team to the nba finals and was the second most impressive player out of every individual who participated in the playoffs, mcgrady on the other hand lost in the first round after going up 3-1 mostly due to his lack of showing up, and wasn't even the most impressive player on his own team.[/QUOTE]

T-Mac didn't have a great rebounding team like Lebron(he had a terrible one), and he didn't have a top 4 defensive team(again,. he had a bad defensive team). T-Mac was also easily his team's best and most impressive player.

[QUOTE]the pistons only had 4 players that were better than armstrong: wallace, billups, hamilton, and robinson. i have no idea why you are mentioning guys like okur and atkins.[/QUOTE]

Okur and Atkins were nice bench players, especially since they weren't Detroit's best bench player. That team had a lot of quality players.

[QUOTE]i'll give you moses malone for what he achieved in the 1981 playoffs. off the top of my head there isn't anyone else.[/QUOTE]

Moses might make my top 2 that year, not sure, but he's definitely close. Kareem in '75 and '76, Kobe in '05 and '06, Wade in '09. Jordan would probably be top 3 in '87, doesn't have much of a case over Magic or Bird, so it depends on what you consider close.

[QUOTE]i'll agree that they were very close. but bryant wins due being much more successful, contributing to a winning cause, kobe was actually the lakers best player in the regular season, better numbers even though he had to share the ball with shaquille o'neal and his 28ppg.[/QUOTE]

I agree that Kobe was the Lakers best player in the regular season, but his team was a disappointment given what they should have achieved. Kobe had a lot more to work with than T-Mac, and a 5-10 record without Shaq doesn't help his case considering his team in Shaq's absence was similar to what T-Mac had to work with, and he led them to a record above .500 for an entire year. Finally, Kobe was more of a disappointment in the Spurs series than T-Mac was in the Pistons series. Kobe did not have better numbers, though. T-Mac's numbers were better.

But I think they're very close, so I don't have any problem with you taking Kobe. I'm not changing my mind on my decision, though.

[QUOTE]dirk was better in the regular season, and also in the playoffs. he was easily the best player on his 60-22 dallas mavericks who also made the conference finals, who lost to the eventual champion san antonio spurs, the same series in which he went down to an injury and was forced to miss the final 3 games of that series.[/QUOTE]

Dirk had the better playoff run, but he was not a better player. T-Mac was the better scorer, better passer and playmaker, and certainly no worse as a defender. That's all I need.

[QUOTE]i will take kidd, who led his team to a 12-2 record en route to the nba finals, and was able to take 2 games off the san antonio spurs. kidd averaged 19/7/9/2 against the milwaukee bucks including a 22/11/11/3 triple double in the elimination game, 19/9/9/2 in the 4-0 sweep of the boston celtics including 29/10/8/2 in the elimination game, 24/10/6/3 in the 4-0 sweep of the detroit pistons including 26/12/7/2 in the elimination game, and 20/6/8/1 against the san antonio spurs in the finals.[/QUOTE]

Kidd was great in the playoffs, no argument here. Still not enough for me to take him over T-Mac, who was just a better player on a much worse team.

[QUOTE]it is very close between wallace and mcgrady, some would almost say they were inseparable. i wouldn't though. and what separated these two players was how they performed in the playoffs. ben wallace was the best player on his team by the widest margin in the nba outside of tim duncan, tracy mcgrady, and kevin garnett, and was able to lead his cast to the eastern conference finals. wallace was one of the most dynamic nba players in the history of the game, and he took his game to another level in these playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Nobody would say Wallace and T-Mac were inseparable. He anchored a great defense and led his team to a nice season, but he had an excellent team stacked with quality players.

[QUOTE]against orlando he averaged 11.1ppg, 17.9rpg, 2.3apg, 3.1spg, and 3.3bpg. just crazy production right there, and if you haven't watched this series, i encourage you to do so and after you have watched the final game you will realise who was the better player between ben wallace and tracy mcgrady alone, you will need no further proof.[/QUOTE]

I did watch this series, and I have realized who the better player was to the point where I need no further proof. It's T-Mac.

[QUOTE]yao was barely even a top 5 center, and besides that they were the same.[/QUOTE]

If I count Amare as a center than Yao was top 4 behind Shaq, Amare and Ben Wallace. If I count Duncan than he was top 5, but a clear top 5. Regardless, T-Mac didn't have a teammate close to even '05 Yao on his '03 team. And no, the rest of the rosters weren't the same since the '05 Rockets were so much better defensively and on the boards and still had better shooting around him.

Even for arguments sake if they were the same outside Yao(which they weren't), that'd still mean his '05 cast was considerably better because of Yao.

[QUOTE]he couldn't play off the ball because cleveland couldn't afford him to play off the ball, they needed the ball in his hands to give them the best chance to win games of basketball.[/QUOTE]

He couldn't play off the ball because it's something he didn't have a decent ability to do until the 2012 season. We saw this in 2011 when he was in a position where playing off the ball was certainly something he could have and should have done at times.

[QUOTE]that team with the best point guard in the league is a very dangerous one, especially when he was playoff experience, and when you throw in guys like the ones i mention the nets team, fresh from defeating 47 win raptors (only 3 wins from being in championship conversation ), it would not matter who you have as bigmen, you will be a tough team to beat.[/QUOTE]

Big men are very important, and it's why a team with such a great backcourt only went .500.

[QUOTE]me too. i was very impressed.[/QUOTE]

Then you have lower standards than I do.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Morton_Ether_1846.jpg[/IMG]

Shep getting ethered by shaqattack

[QUOTE]Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]They lost to the Celtics in the finals, and the bottom line is that Rocket team was much more talented than the '03 Magic.[/QUOTE]
bottom line: proof that a 40 win team in the regular season can go far in the playoffs
[QUOTE]:oldlol: [/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]T-Mac didn't have a great rebounding team like Lebron(he had a terrible one), and he didn't have a top 4 defensive team(again,. he had a bad defensive team). T-Mac was also easily his team's best and most impressive player.[/QUOTE]
drew gooden was the most impressive magic player in the playoffs, while mcgrady was their best. lebron made that team who they were.
[QUOTE]Okur and Atkins were nice bench players, especially since they weren't Detroit's best bench player. That team had a lot of quality players.[/QUOTE]
jacque vaughn was a nice player for orlando, as was pat garrity, shawn kemp, and gordan giricek
[QUOTE]Moses might make my top 2 that year, not sure, but he's definitely close. Kareem in '75 and '76, Kobe in '05 and '06, Wade in '09. Jordan would probably be top 3 in '87, doesn't have much of a case over Magic or Bird, so it depends on what you consider close.[/QUOTE]
moses was top 2 in '81. you are right about kareem. kobe was nowhere near top 2 in those years. wade was top 4, as was jordan.
[QUOTE]I agree that Kobe was the Lakers best player in the regular season, but his team was a disappointment given what they should have achieved. Kobe had a lot more to work with than T-Mac, and a 5-10 record without Shaq doesn't help his case considering his team in Shaq's absence was similar to what T-Mac had to work with, and he led them to a record above .500 for an entire year. Finally, Kobe was more of a disappointment in the Spurs series than T-Mac was in the Pistons series. Kobe did not have better numbers, though. T-Mac's numbers were better.

But I think they're very close, so I don't have any problem with you taking Kobe. I'm not changing my mind on my decision, though.[/QUOTE]
kobe's team was a disappointment during the regular season due to o'neal disrupting chemistry with a sore toe at the beginning of the season.

even in those losses in games that o'neal missed, 2 were against the nba champion san antonio spurs, also losses were against the 50 win trail blazers in portland, the celtics who made the conference semi finals in boston, and the 60 win conference finalist mavericks in dallas.

regardless, bryant did all he could in o'neals absence, averaging around 32/9/6 with over 2 steals per game.
[QUOTE]Dirk had the better playoff run, but he was not a better player. T-Mac was the better scorer, better passer and playmaker, and certainly no worse as a defender. That's all I need.[/QUOTE]
all i need is more impact and winning games. contributing to a winning cause. winning games of basketball.
[QUOTE]Kidd was great in the playoffs, no argument here. Still not enough for me to take him over T-Mac, who was just a better player on a much worse team.[/QUOTE]
kidd was the better player on the better team. what kidd did in the playoffs was more than enough evidence to suggest this.
[QUOTE]Nobody would say Wallace and T-Mac were inseparable. He anchored a great defense and led his team to a nice season, but he had an excellent team stacked with quality players.[/QUOTE]
lol what a joke. his best players were career journeyman chauncey billups who had career averages of 11 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists, and 40%fg, unproven 2 guard richard hamilton they had just aquired for jerry stackhouse and his 21/4/5, and 65 year old clifford robinson.
[QUOTE]I did watch this series, and I have realized who the better player was to the point where I need no further proof. It's T-Mac.[/QUOTE]
watch it again, you must have missed all parts where ben wallace was on the floor.
[QUOTE]If I count Amare as a center than Yao was top 4 behind Shaq, Amare and Ben Wallace. If I count Duncan than he was top 5, but a clear top 5. Regardless, T-Mac didn't have a teammate close to even '05 Yao on his '03 team. And no, the rest of the rosters weren't the same since the '05 Rockets were so much better defensively and on the boards and still had better shooting around him.

Even for arguments sake if they were the same outside Yao(which they weren't), that'd still mean his '05 cast was considerably better because of Yao.[/QUOTE]
yao was barely top 5, not clear. marcus camby was very, very close. besides that the magic and rockets were very much the same, given the same system and coach. drew gooden almost was as good as yao in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]He couldn't play off the ball because it's something he didn't have a decent ability to do until the 2012 season. We saw this in 2011 when he was in a position where playing off the ball was certainly something he could have and should have done at times.[/QUOTE]
he couldn't play off the ball because cleveland couldn't afford him to play off the ball, they needed the ball in his hands to give them the best chance to win games of basketball.
[QUOTE]Big men are very important, and it's why a team with such a great backcourt only went .500. [/QUOTE]
but they still were strong enough to make it to the second round
[QUOTE]Then you have lower standards than I do.[/QUOTE]
says someone who ranks players based on ppg :roll:

[QUOTE=Shep]
bottom line: proof that a 40 win team in the regular season can go far in the playoffs[/QUOTE]

You have a real problem with context, don't you?

[QUOTE]drew gooden was the most impressive magic player in the playoffs, while mcgrady was their best. lebron made that team who they were.[/QUOTE]

Lebron, along with their defense(most of the credit for that goes to Mike Brown), and their rebounding which you can give Ilgauskas, Gooden and Varejao most of the credit for.

[QUOTE]jacque vaughn was a nice player for orlando, as was pat garrity, shawn kemp, and gordan giricek[/QUOTE]

Jacque Vaughn is decent in a limited role. A good defender, but offensively challenged. The problem, is Armstrong at that stage of his career was also better suited to a back up role.

:oldlol: at calling '03 Kemp a nice player. Garrity was a good 3 point shooting, but didn't really do anything else.

[QUOTE]moses was top 2 in '81. you are right about kareem. kobe was nowhere near top 2 in those years. wade was top 4, as was jordan.[/QUOTE]

Kobe was best each season and Wade was top 2, or at worst top 3. There's no argument for Wade being lower than top 3.

[QUOTE]kobe's team was a disappointment during the regular season due to o'neal disrupting chemistry with a sore toe at the beginning of the season.[/QUOTE]

Shaq does deserve some of the blame, I can't dispute that. But this isn't a Shaq vs Kobe thing, it's Kobe vs T-Mac. I pretty much agree with your assessment of Shaq vs Kobe in 2003.

[QUOTE]even in those losses in games that o'neal missed, 2 were against the nba champion san antonio spurs, also losses were against the 50 win trail blazers in portland, the celtics who made the conference semi finals in boston, and the 60 win conference finalist mavericks in dallas.[/QUOTE]

Boston was a 44-38 East team, I'd call them an average team.

Their losses also included a horrendous 17-65 Cavs team, a 35-47 Hawk team, a 37-45 Knick team and a 37-45 Wizard team.

I'll give you credit for looking into it deeper, but you only presented one side, the losses overall is pretty much split between good and bad teams with a couple of average teams thrown in. I wouldn't call the competition too tough or bad.

[QUOTE]regardless, bryant did all he could in o'neals absence, averaging around 32/9/6 with over 2 steals per game.[/QUOTE]

His all around ball was very good, though he was now the primary focus of opposing defenses every night with nobody to take pressure off him, T-Mac faced that for an entire season and averaged 32/7/6 on 46% and 24 FGA while getting his team above .500, Kobe did it for 15 games on 43% and 27 FGA and his team had twice as many losses as wins.

[QUOTE]all i need is more impact and winning games. contributing to a winning cause. winning games of basketball.[/QUOTE]

:roll: I'd expect Dirk to win more games with a top 2 point guard/top 15 player and all-star/all-nba guard in Nash as well as another all-star caliber player in Finley and a 4th guy in Van Exel who came off the bench compared to the trash T-Mac had. Hell, even Raef LaFrentz would be among T-Mac's best teammates, much less Dirk's 4th best player who would easily be T-Mac's second best.

[QUOTE]kidd was the better player on the better team. what kidd did in the playoffs was more than enough evidence to suggest this.[/QUOTE]

Kidd was on a better team, you're right about that.

[QUOTE]lol what a joke. his best players were career journeyman chauncey billups who had career averages of 11 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists, and 40%fg, unproven 2 guard richard hamilton they had just aquired for jerry stackhouse and his 21/4/5, and 65 year old clifford robinson.[/QUOTE]

Billups had started to play well in '02 with Minnesota and continued his improvement in '03. He was definitely a solid point guard. Knew how to use his size, could shoot, defend and was becoming pretty good at running a team. He was a score-first point guard, but fit well on that team and was a legitimate threat.

Rip was already a 20 ppg scorer who didn't need the ball and he fit perfectly with Billups. Robinson was an all-defensive second team forward just the year before and a player with size who could stretch the defense with his outside shooting. Then there was Corliss Williamson who had been voted sixth man of the year the previous season and was a physical player who used his size well and was a legitimate scorer in the post and mid-range area. And the team had several other solid role players which I believed I mentioned.

[QUOTE]yao was barely top 5, not clear. marcus camby was very, very close. besides that the magic and rockets were very much the same, given the same system and coach. drew gooden almost was as good as yao in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Camby being close. It's pretty simple, T-Mac's '05 team was an elite defense as opposed to a terrible defense like his '03 team, a good rebounding team as opposed to a bad one and he still had better shooters.

[QUOTE]he couldn't play off the ball because cleveland couldn't afford him to play off the ball, they needed the ball in his hands to give them the best chance to win games of basketball.[/QUOTE]

There's some truth in that, but it still doesn't change the fact that this was a fundamental skill Lebron lacked, and this was exposed his first year in Miami when he was in a position to play without the ball a lot more, but just stood around and didn't move much.

[QUOTE]but they still were strong enough to make it to the second round[/QUOTE]

Not saying much in that conference.

[QUOTE]says someone who ranks players based on ppg :roll:[/QUOTE]

This really is a terrible attempt to discredit me. Nobody is falling for it, especially since I've destroyed this myth you've tried to spread.

[QUOTE]You have a real problem with context, don't you?[/QUOTE]
i have no problems
[QUOTE]Lebron, along with their defense(most of the credit for that goes to Mike Brown), and their rebounding which you can give Ilgauskas, Gooden and Varejao most of the credit for.[/QUOTE]
yeh so if their success was 1 lebron gets 0.8, the other 0.2 was made up by a number of players. makes sense.
[QUOTE]Jacque Vaughn is decent in a limited role. A good defender, but offensively challenged. The problem, is Armstrong at that stage of his career was also better suited to a back up role.

at calling '03 Kemp a nice player. Garrity was a good 3 point shooting, but didn't really do anything else.[/QUOTE]
all were better than filth like atkins and okur. atkins could only manage 65 games, and shot 36 percent. okur was only worth 19 minutes in his 72 games, shot 43% from the field and contributed only 6.9 points and 4.7 rebounds.
[QUOTE]Kobe was best each season and Wade was top 2, or at worst top 3. There's no argument for Wade being lower than top 3.[/QUOTE]
:roll: bryant was 9th then 19th, and wade was 4th.
[QUOTE]Shaq does deserve some of the blame, I can't dispute that. But this isn't a Shaq vs Kobe thing, it's Kobe vs T-Mac. I pretty much agree with your assessment of Shaq vs Kobe in 2003.[/QUOTE]
bryant gets the slight edge over tmac here
[QUOTE]Boston was a 44-38 East team, I'd call them an average team.

Their losses also included a horrendous 17-65 Cavs team, a 35-47 Hawk team, a 37-45 Knick team and a 37-45 Wizard team.

I'll give you credit for looking into it deeper, but you only presented one side, the losses overall is pretty much split between good and bad teams with a couple of average teams thrown in. I wouldn't call the competition too tough or bad.[/QUOTE]
apart from 1 bad team, the rest of them were tough games to win, especially since 2 were against the league dominating san antonio spurs with peak tim duncan, and slava medvedenko being the second offensive option on his team. kobe did everything a top 5 player could possibly do.
[QUOTE]His all around ball was very good, though he was now the primary focus of opposing defenses every night with nobody to take pressure off him, T-Mac faced that for an entire season and averaged 32/7/6 on 46% and 24 FGA while getting his team above .500, Kobe did it for 15 games on 43% and 27 FGA and his team had twice as many losses as wins.[/QUOTE]
15 games is not 82 games, so no comparison can be made here. bryant led his team to a 50-32 record.
[QUOTE]I'd expect Dirk to win more games with a top 2 point guard/top 15 player and all-star/all-nba guard in Nash as well as another all-star caliber player in Finley and a 4th guy in Van Exel who came off the bench compared to the trash T-Mac had. Hell, even Raef LaFrentz would be among T-Mac's best teammates, much less Dirk's 4th best player who would easily be T-Mac's second best.[/QUOTE]
top 2 point guard? nash wasn't even a top 4 point guard, finley wasn't even top 22 in the league. nowitzki, however, was top 6, was easily dallas' best player in both the regular season and playoffs, led his mavs to the best record in the nba and conference finals, was top 3 most valuable, beat 50 win portland in the wcsf averaging 29.9ppg, 8.9rpg, 1.6apg, 1.6spg, and 0.6bpg on 52%fg, 56%3p, and 90%ft, and beat 59 win sacramento in the wcsf averaging 20.7ppg, 14.3rpg, 2.9apg, 0.9spg, and 1.3bpg on 45%fg, 41%3p, and 88%ft
[QUOTE]Kidd was on a better team, you're right about that.[/QUOTE]
i am right about everything i type
[QUOTE]Billups had started to play well in '02 with Minnesota and continued his improvement in '03. He was definitely a solid point guard. Knew how to use his size, could shoot, defend and was becoming pretty good at running a team. He was a score-first point guard, but fit well on that team and was a legitimate threat.[/QUOTE]
billups was a career journeyman who had barely started over half of his games at point guard and scored 12 points on 10 field goal attempts.
[QUOTE]Rip was already a 20 ppg scorer who didn't need the ball and he fit perfectly with Billups. Robinson was an all-defensive second team forward just the year before and a player with size who could stretch the defense with his outside shooting. Then there was Corliss Williamson who had been voted sixth man of the year the previous season and was a physical player who used his size well and was a legitimate scorer in the post and mid-range area. And the team had several other solid role players which I believed I mentioned.[/QUOTE]
rip was nice, but a downgrade from stackhouse the previous year. robinson was 36 years old, averaged less than 4 rebounds per game, shot the ball 12 times to get his 12 points, and shot less than 40% from the field, and corliss williamson was nowhere near 6th man of the year the previous season.
[QUOTE]at Camby being close. It's pretty simple, T-Mac's '05 team was an elite defense as opposed to a terrible defense like his '03 team, a good rebounding team as opposed to a bad one and he still had better shooters.[/QUOTE]
camby was very close, separated only by the smallest of margins. the magic and rockets were very much the same, given the same system and coach. drew gooden almost was as good as yao in the playoffs.
[QUOTE]There's some truth in that, but it still doesn't change the fact that this was a fundamental skill Lebron lacked, and this was exposed his first year in Miami when he was in a position to play without the ball a lot more, but just stood around and didn't move much.[/QUOTE]
who cares what happened in his first year in miami (he was still the best player in the league by a huge margin). in '07 he showed enough to be the best player in the league outside of tim duncan, as i have already proven time and time again.
[QUOTE]Not saying much in that conference.[/QUOTE]
better than losing in the first round.
[QUOTE]This really is a terrible attempt to discredit me. Nobody is falling for it, especially since I've destroyed this myth you've tried to spread.[/QUOTE]
ppg + popular notions + excuses = shaqattacks reasonings for wrong rankings.

I love Shep claims he's right about everything, ShaqAttack is wrong about everything, yet he can't use proper grammar. :oldlol: Such an arrogant little fellow who can't admit he's wrong.

[QUOTE=D.J.]I love Shep claims he's right about everything, ShaqAttack is wrong about everything, yet he can't use proper grammar. :oldlol: Such an arrogant little fellow who can't admit he's wrong.[/QUOTE]

[B]There are 2 Identified Barkley Haters on ISH...But Shep Is N

[QUOTE=Shep]
yeh so if their success was 1 lebron gets 0.8, the other 0.2 was made up by a number of players. makes sense.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Cleveland were one of the 4 best defensive teams and 3 best rebounding teams, that's primarily how they won because they were a poor offensive team.

[QUOTE]all were better than filth like atkins and okur. atkins could only manage 65 games, and shot 36 percent. okur was only worth 19 minutes in his 72 games, shot 43% from the field and contributed only 6.9 points and 4.7 rebounds.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Garrity being better than Okur. it's an easy comparison since both are big men. Garrity was a one-dimensional 3 point shooting big man, while Okur could also shoot outside, but was a solid post defender and rebounder as well. He only played 19 mpg since Detroit was so deep.

Atkins did have a terrible shooting season, I'll give you that. But he was still a quality backup point guard, Definitely better than Jacque Vaughn. :oldlol: at the 65 game comment.

Detroit was the deepest and most talented team in the East.

[QUOTE]:roll: bryant was 9th then 19th, and wade was 4th.[/QUOTE]

:roll: Kobe has never been as low as 19th as a starter, the only season he's started that it's even a reasonable statement is '99. He's only been 9th or lower as a starter in '99, '00 and '05.

Kobe was clearly the best player in the league in 2006. I don't see much of a case for anyone else. There's no way he should have won 45 games in the West with that cast, his only teammate that was good was Lamar Odom, and he was inconsistent, and didn't play that well until the second half.

After a season of carrying the team with his scoring as successfully as you could expect at his coaches request, he did the opposite and become a playmaker and even somewhat of a decoy in the 1st round vs Phoenix once it was best for the team. It almost resulted in an upset of the Suns, and Kobe's game-winner in game 4 as well as his 50 point game that would have closed them out if not for the 3 by Tim Thomas.

Aside from being the best scorer in the league, Kobe showed at times that he was a fine defensive player. He would often step up and take the challenge of guarding the opposing team's best perimeter player such as Wade, Carter, Allen or T-Mac, and had some memorable defensive games.

There's nobody else who could have done what Kobe did. He was clearly the most skilled player in the league, and put those skills to work. His individual play resulted in his team probably overachieving more than any other team relative to their talent level.

Name 1 other perimeter player who could have made the Lakers this good.

In 2007, there was one player who has a case over Kobe and it's Tim Duncan. But Kobe was still the consensus best player and for good reason. He was very close to the 2006 version, except worse defensively, and not as capable of carrying the team for an entire season. But that historic scoring ability returned, and he did it better than anyone in the league was capable of when his coach asked him. But spent much of the season excelling as a facilitator. With the Lakers injuries and talent, that team had no business making the playoffs.

As for Wade? The only player better than Wade in '09 was Lebron, and the only other player with a case was Kobe. No other player can be brought up vs Wade, who clearly peaked that year. He was still in his athletic prime, but had easily the best shooting season of his career, shooting mid-range jumpers more frequently and more accurately than ever, and becoming a legit 3 point threat for the first time. This improved shooting allowed Wade to mix up his game far more and be more under control. There wasn't as much as that falling down every play bullsh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]t. Though Wade was still one of the league's most aggressive and athletic guards. As a follow up to Wade being more under control, we saw him cut down on his turnovers greatly, and this was one of only 2 full seasons when Wade had even a solid mid-range jumper(along with 2006). Plus, Wade had easily his best defensive season.

It's one of those rare seasons when a player is literally at their best at both ends and in every aspect of the game. This rarely happens, and one of the few other examples is Shaq in 2000.

[QUOTE]bryant gets the slight edge over tmac here[/QUOTE]

I think it's the other way around, but since it is a slight edge, I take no issue with you choosing Kobe.

[QUOTE]apart from 1 bad team, the rest of them were tough games to win, especially since 2 were against the league dominating san antonio spurs with peak tim duncan, and slava medvedenko being the second offensive option on his team. kobe did everything a top 5 player could possibly do.[/QUOTE]

The schedule overall was pretty average. A mix of good, bad and average teams.

[QUOTE]15 games is not 82 games, so no comparison can be made here. bryant led his team to a 50-32 record.[/QUOTE]

Which is an underwhelming record considering he played with Shaq who was still in his late prime, or close to it, and the other key players from a championship team.

[QUOTE]top 2 point guard? nash wasn't even a top 4 point guard, finley wasn't even top 22 in the league. nowitzki, however, was top 6, was easily dallas' best player in both the regular season and playoffs, led his mavs to the best record in the nba and conference finals, was top 3 most valuable, beat 50 win portland in the wcsf averaging 29.9ppg, 8.9rpg, 1.6apg, 1.6spg, and 0.6bpg on 52%fg, 56%3p, and 90%ft, and beat 59 win sacramento in the wcsf averaging 20.7ppg, 14.3rpg, 2.9apg, 0.9spg, and 1.3bpg on 45%fg, 41%3p, and 88%ft[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Nash not being a top 4 point guard. Who said Finley was top 22? He's a damn good 3rd best player.

Dirk was a great player with a great season and playoff run, but nothing on paper changes the fact that he wasn't as good as T-Mac at this time. Nobody thought so.

Look at it this way. T-Mac was clearly the better scorer at this time, in fact, arguably the best scorer in the league rivaled by only Shaq and perhaps Kobe. T-mac was also the best passer who wasn't a point guard, and no worse of a defender, in fact, I'd say better than Dirk at this stage. You can't tell me Dirk's rebounding was enough to make up for this. 3 more rebounds per game from a power forward vs a guard simply isn't enough.

[QUOTE]billups was a career journeyman who had barely started over half of his games at point guard and scored 12 points on 10 field goal attempts.[/QUOTE]

In this season, he averaged over 16 points on less than 12 field goal attempts.

[QUOTE]rip was nice, but a downgrade from stackhouse the previous year. robinson was 36 years old, averaged less than 4 rebounds per game, shot the ball 12 times to get his 12 points, and shot less than 40% from the field, and corliss williamson was nowhere near 6th man of the year the previous season.[/QUOTE]

Stackhouse was more skilled and talented than Rip individually, but Rip was a better guy to fit in with other talent. He did most of his damage without the ball, took smart shots, wasn't selfish, and certainly didn't have any of the chucking tendencies that Stackhouse did.

Robinson was a good all around player, he did still have scoring and shooting ability and he was a good defender. He was never a great rebounder.

Corliss Williamson was still a very solid scorer.

[QUOTE]camby was very close, separated only by the smallest of margins. the magic and rockets were very much the same, given the same system and coach. drew gooden almost was as good as yao in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Gooden was nowhere near Yao in the playoffs. That, along with your overrating of Camby is a perfect example of why you have to put down the stat-sheet for a minute.

[QUOTE]who cares what happened in his first year in miami (he was still the best player in the league by a huge margin). in '07 he showed enough to be the best player in the league outside of tim duncan, as i have already proven time and time again.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't the best in the league by a huge margin in 2011. I'd probably rank him as the best player in 2011 as well, but Dwight Howard was definitely up there.

You have never come close to proving Lebron was the 2nd best player in '07. You haven't come close because it's flat out wrong. I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he's absolutely no better than 3rd.

And the reason I brought up Lebron's weakness playing off the ball in 2011 because you excused his ball-dominance in 2007 as a necessity, I brought up 2011 because he was now in a position where playing without the ball was best for the team at times with the most talented trio in years, and his inability to do so was exposed.

[QUOTE]better than losing in the first round.[/QUOTE]

Not if you play worse than the player who loses in the 1st round.

[QUOTE]ppg + popular notions + excuses = shaqattacks reasonings for wrong rankings.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Try again. Your rankings have proven to be far more ridiculous. You often end up with an insane variation between players from year to year, even when they play at a pretty comparable level.

I have yet to do anything as ridiculous as rank 2000 Kobe 2nd best. And you don't even show any consistency with this overrating of championship 2nd options when you have 2006 Shaq, a superior impact player to 2000 Kobe 15th or some sh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]t in 2006. And, 2002 Kobe, who was vastly superior to the 2000 version ends up 3rd on your list(which was correct), but somehow 2000 Kobe is 2nd?

[QUOTE]Cleveland were one of the 4 best defensive teams and 3 best rebounding teams, that's primarily how they won because they were a poor offensive team.[/QUOTE]
actually the primary reason they won was that they were lucky enough to have had an all-time great level player amongst a team full of fringe level players, and who's second best player wasn't among the top 10 players at his position in the league.
[QUOTE]at Garrity being better than Okur. it's an easy comparison since both are big men. Garrity was a one-dimensional 3 point shooting big man, while Okur could also shoot outside, but was a solid post defender and rebounder as well. He only played 19 mpg since Detroit was so deep.[/QUOTE]
he only played 19 minutes because thats all he was worth. okur shot a disgusting 34% from downtown. garrity was automatic, averaged 11 points, 2 assists, 1 steal, and 2 3 pointers per contest. garrity also shot 83% from the free throw line. he scored over 20 points 7 times in the regular season.
[QUOTE]Atkins did have a terrible shooting season, I'll give you that. But he was still a quality backup point guard, Definitely better than Jacque Vaughn. :oldlol: at the 65 game comment.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: at all your comments. vaughn was easily better than atkins, who shot the ball more times than he scored points.
[QUOTE]Detroit was the deepest and most talented team in the East.[/QUOTE]
yet it didn't result in many more wins than the other teams. 1 more win than second seed new jersey, 2 more wins than indiana and philadelphia, and only 3 more wins than fifth seed new orleans.
[QUOTE]Kobe has never been as low as 19th as a starter, the only season he's started that it's even a reasonable statement is '99. He's only been 9th or lower as a starter in '99, '00 and '05.[/QUOTE]
in '99 he was 17th, 2 spots higher than he was '07
[QUOTE]Kobe was clearly the best player in the league in 2006. I don't see much of a case for anyone else. There's no way he should have won 45 games in the West with that cast, his only teammate that was good was Lamar Odom, and he was inconsistent, and didn't play that well until the second half.[/QUOTE]
he wasn't anywhere near the best player in the league, dwyane wade was clearly in another stratosphere. guys like lebron james, dirk nowitzki, elton brand, and dirk nowitzki were better by a huge margin. and then there were shawn marion, allen iverson, and andrei kirilenko who were still clearly better.
[QUOTE]After a season of carrying the team with his scoring as successfully as you could expect at his coaches request, he did the opposite and become a playmaker and even somewhat of a decoy in the 1st round vs Phoenix once it was best for the team. It almost resulted in an upset of the Suns, and Kobe's game-winner in game 4 as well as his 50 point game that would have closed them out if not for the 3 by Tim Thomas.[/QUOTE]
lol the best scorer in the league does not become a "decoy" in the playoffs. he was almost outplayed by his second best player, in lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than he did. all he could manage in the highest paced environment he could possibly wish for in the playoffs was a disgusting dropoff of 8 points per game along with almost 5 turnovers per game.
[QUOTE]Aside from being the best scorer in the league, Kobe showed at times that he was a fine defensive player. He would often step up and take the challenge of guarding the opposing team's best perimeter player such as Wade, Carter, Allen or T-Mac, and had some memorable defensive games.[/QUOTE]
bryant was an ok defender, slightly above average, nothing special. he had better defensive seasons.
[QUOTE]There's nobody else who could have done what Kobe did. He was clearly the most skilled player in the league, and put those skills to work. His individual play resulted in his team probably overachieving more than any other team relative to their talent level.

Name 1 other perimeter player who could have made the Lakers this good.[/QUOTE]
i can name 2. dwyane wade, allen iverson.
[QUOTE]In 2007, there was one player who has a case over Kobe and it's Tim Duncan. But Kobe was still the consensus best player and for good reason. He was very close to the 2006 version, except worse defensively, and not as capable of carrying the team for an entire season. But that historic scoring ability returned, and he did it better than anyone in the league was capable of when his coach asked him. But spent much of the season excelling as a facilitator. With the Lakers injuries and talent, that team had no business making the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
there is no argument for putting bryant anywhere near the top 10, let alone top 2 in 2007. he had a worse regular season, and an even worse playoff series in which once again, was almost outplayed by lamar odom who stepped up alot more. the lakers had a much higher pace than they did the previous year, and he simply could not capitalize.
[QUOTE]As for Wade? The only player better than Wade in '09 was Lebron, and the only other player with a case was Kobe. No other player can be brought up vs Wade, who clearly peaked that year. He was still in his athletic prime, but had easily the best shooting season of his career, shooting mid-range jumpers more frequently and more accurately than ever, and becoming a legit 3 point threat for the first time. This improved shooting allowed Wade to mix up his game far more and be more under control. There wasn't as much as that falling down every play bullshit. Though Wade was still one of the league's most aggressive and athletic guards. As a follow up to Wade being more under control, we saw him cut down on his turnovers greatly, and this was one of only 2 full seasons when Wade had even a solid mid-range jumper(along with 2006). Plus, Wade had easily his best defensive season.[/QUOTE]
yeh lebron was better in '09, as was kobe. the other better player was dwight howard. dwight led his orlando magic to 59 regular season wins, was the defensive player of the year, was second only to lebron james as the most valuable player in the league, 1st team all-nba, led his team to the nba finals, including victories against the 62 win celtics, and the 66 win cleveland cavaliers. in the first round against philadelphia, dwight averaged 24.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 1.0apg, 0.6spg, and 2.8bpg on 68% from the field. in the upset win over the 62 win celtics howard monstered his way to 16.4ppg, 17.1rpg, 1.4apg, 0.6spg, and 2.7bpg on 55% from the field. in the surprise series victory over the cleveland cavaliers he averaged 25.8ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.8apg, 0.8spg, and 1.2bpg on 65% from the field, including a 40 point, 14 rebound demolishing in series deciding game 6. in the finals he wasn't as effective from the field, but he still was able to put up 15.4ppg, 15.2rpg, 2.2apg, 1.6spg, and 4.0bpg.
[QUOTE]The schedule overall was pretty average. A mix of good, bad and average teams.[/QUOTE]
tough schedule
[QUOTE]Which is an underwhelming record considering he played with Shaq who was still in his late prime, or close to it, and the other key players from a championship team.[/QUOTE]
o'neal was unmotivated, bryant played fine. o'neal's play and attitude, was the only reason they lost that many games.
[QUOTE]at Nash not being a top 4 point guard. Who said Finley was top 22? He's a damn good 3rd best player.[/QUOTE]
finley was top 23, nash was top 19, and fifth best point guard.
[QUOTE]Dirk was a great player with a great season and playoff run, but nothing on paper changes the fact that he wasn't as good as T-Mac at this time. Nobody thought so.[/QUOTE]
who cares about paper? i'm talking about eyes.

[QUOTE]Look at it this way. T-Mac was clearly the better scorer at this time, in fact, arguably the best scorer in the league rivaled by only Shaq and perhaps Kobe. T-mac was also the best passer who wasn't a point guard, and no worse of a defender, in fact, I'd say better than Dirk at this stage. You can't tell me Dirk's rebounding was enough to make up for this. 3 more rebounds per game from a power forward vs a guard simply isn't enough.[/QUOTE]
what about dirk having a better regular season, and then a better playoff. these facts clearly point out that dirk was the better player.
[QUOTE]In this season, he averaged over 16 points on less than 12 field goal attempts. [/QUOTE]
..and they won just as many games as they did with chucky atkins running the point the year earlier.
[QUOTE]Stackhouse was more skilled and talented than Rip individually, but Rip was a better guy to fit in with other talent. He did most of his damage without the ball, took smart shots, wasn't selfish, and certainly didn't have any of the chucking tendencies that Stackhouse did.

Robinson was a good all around player, he did still have scoring and shooting ability and he was a good defender. He was never a great rebounder.

Corliss Williamson was still a very solid scorer.[/QUOTE]
stackhouse contributed much more and won just as many games with less talent the previous season.

robinson was no more than a body, and williamson was a big man who could not rebound to save his life, was pathetic without the ball, and a black hole with it.
[QUOTE]Gooden was nowhere near Yao in the playoffs. That, along with your overrating of Camby is a perfect example of why you have to put down the stat-sheet for a minute.[/QUOTE]
yao played like trash, gooden stepped up huge. no need for stat sheets, go watch the games and you will find these things out.
[QUOTE]He wasn't the best in the league by a huge margin in 2011. I'd probably rank him as the best player in 2011 as well, but Dwight Howard was definitely up there.[/QUOTE]
howard wasn't even in the top 5, and nowhere near lebron james.
[QUOTE]You have never come close to proving Lebron was the 2nd best player in '07. You haven't come close because it's flat out wrong. I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he's absolutely no better than 3rd.[/QUOTE]
where have you proven this? it must have been in another thread somewhere because in this one all of your arguments have been destroyed.
[QUOTE]And the reason I brought up Lebron's weakness playing off the ball in 2011 because you excused his ball-dominance in 2007 as a necessity, I brought up 2011 because he was now in a position where playing without the ball was best for the team at times with the most talented trio in years, and his inability to do so was exposed.[/QUOTE]
he has always had the ability to do so, 2011 was no exception. he just played timid in 2011, when he had the ball he was timid and when he didn't have the ball he was timid, thats what it came down to.
[QUOTE]Not if you play worse than the player who loses in the 1st round.[/QUOTE]
not sure why you are mentioning this considering he played easily better.
[QUOTE]Try again. Your rankings have proven to be far more ridiculous. You often end up with an insane variation between players from year to year, even when they play at a pretty comparable level.[/QUOTE]
who cares if they put up the same stats, its not all about stats, which is why variations occur from year to year.
[QUOTE]I have yet to do anything as ridiculous as rank 2000 Kobe 2nd best. And you don't even show any consistency with this overrating of championship 2nd options when you have 2006 Shaq, a superior impact player to 2000 Kobe 15th or some shit in 2006. And, 2002 Kobe, who was vastly superior to the 2000 version ends up 3rd on your list(which was correct), but somehow 2000 Kobe is 2nd?[/QUOTE]
this is just plain filth logic. kobe is 2nd in 2000, this is fact. every year there are different players who step up and play big. see 2002 kobe was better than 2000 kobe, yet he is ranked 3rd because tim duncan stepped up and was better than him, yet in 2000 nobody stepped up to the level that duncan showed in 2002. make sense? 2006 shaq was infact the 16th best player in the league and didn't have anywhere near the impact 2000 kobe had.

Karl was on NBA.tv last week and talked/showed something about the pick'n'roll. Interessting was him talking about how much fun it was to play pick'n'roll against Shaq and Chuck, because they hated it and "were the worst at defending it" quote Karl.

Its easy to look back on stats and history and judge a player .

But if you lived in that era and saw those two match up there would be no hesitation when asked this question. Barkley was so much better than Malone it was funny. In fact malone never guarded barkley 1 on 1, it was a mismatch all day.

It brings me to another point, you look at ISH's top players of all time and they have nash over iverson.....Really?

Steve nash who never once played defense in his life is better than ai one of the most unstopable scoring forces ever. Who single handedly prevented the lakers dynasty from a perfect sweep in the playoffs.

History does funny things, but if you lived in that era and watch the games you know.

[QUOTE=jlitt]...Steve nash who never once played defense in his life is better than ai one of the most unstopable scoring forces ever. Who single handedly prevented the lakers dynasty from a perfect sweep in the playoffs...[/QUOTE]

Not disrespecting AI, but there are a lot of great scorers in NBA history and when they get hot they could win you one game against everyone (even the best championship teams in history). AI was assisted by lazy Lakers who won all games before and knew the Sixers had no chance to win 4 out of 7. After this loss they got serious and finished them. AI or not.

[QUOTE=L.A. Jazz]Not disrespecting AI, but there are a lot of great scorers in NBA history and when they get hot they could win you one game against everyone (even the best championship teams in history). AI was assisted by lazy Lakers who won all games before and knew the Sixers had no chance to win 4 out of 7. After this loss they got serious and finished them. AI or not.[/QUOTE]

Right, what im saying is that one 6 foot guard was all that stood between the lakers and the greatest playoff run ever. and no , not a lot of great scorers could win games all by themselves the way ai did that year with the worst supporting cast a finals team has ever seen.

[QUOTE=jlitt]Its easy to look back on stats and history and judge a player .

But if you lived in that era and saw those two match up there would be no hesitation when asked this question. Barkley was so much better than Malone it was funny. In fact malone never guarded barkley 1 on 1, it was a mismatch all day.

It brings me to another point, you look at ISH's top players of all time and they have nash over iverson.....Really?

Steve nash who never once played defense in his life is better than ai one of the most unstopable scoring forces ever. Who single handedly prevented the lakers dynasty from a perfect sweep in the playoffs.

History does funny things, but if you lived in that era and watch the games you know.[/QUOTE]

[B]:applause: Everyone who saw the NBA from 1985 to 1995 Knew Barkley Was Better Untill His Back Injuries. Its Only the Kiddos the Watched the NBA from 1995-96 Onwards and Jazz Fans Who Think Malone Was Better as a Total Player...Which is Wrong because they Did Not See a Healthy Barkley. Infact, Many of Those Fans Even Claim Stockton as Better Tham Magic Johnson. :facepalm [/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]:applause: Everyone who saw the NBA from 1985 to 1995 Knew Barkley Was Better Untill His Back Injuries. Its Only the Kiddos the Watched the NBA from 1995-96 Onwards and Jazz Fans Who Think Malone Was Better as a Total Player...Which is Wrong because they Did Not See a Healthy Barkley. Infact, Many of Those Fans Even Claim Stockton as Better Tham Magic Johnson. :facepalm [/B][/QUOTE]


Didn't you once say Stockton was better than Isiah Thomas?

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Didn't you once say Stockton was better than Isiah Thomas?[/QUOTE]

[B]Which he Was

But he Was :no: Magic who Was a Triple Double Walking Machine. The Only Think Isiah Was Better than Stockton at Was at Driving to The Basket.

As Far as:

-Creating
-Passing
-Shooting
-Defense

etc

Stockton Was Better than Isiah at.[/B]

Regular season- Stockton > Isiah
Playoffs- Isiah >>> Stockton

[QUOTE=D.J.]Regular season- Stockton > Isiah
Playoffs- Isiah >>> Stockton[/QUOTE]

[B]Could Be...But U Must Remember Stockton Played Only 1 One Great Offensive Player in Malone, a Versatile Bailey and a Great Shot Blocker Paint Defender in Eaton (88 Jazz > 97 or 98 Jazz)

While...Isiah Played With a Total Stocked Team: 2 Great Scorers in Dantley and Aguirre. 1 Good Scorer in Dumars ( Best Back Court of the 80s). 2 Great Rebounders in Laimbeer and Rodman and 5 Great Defenders in Dumars, Rodman, Salley, Laimbeer and Mahorn.

Isiah Had It Easier than John.[/B]

[QUOTE=Shep]actually the primary reason they won was that they were lucky enough to have had an all-time great level player amongst a team full of fringe level players, and who's second best player wasn't among the top 10 players at his position in the league.[/QUOTE]

His cast was far better than you're giving them credit for. But we don't even need to go over subjective crap about how they look on paper. Just remember that they were a top 2 rebounding team and a top 4 defensive team. Are you going to pretend that doesn't matter?

[QUOTE]he only played 19 minutes because thats all he was worth. okur shot a disgusting 34% from downtown. garrity was automatic, averaged 11 points, 2 assists, 1 steal, and 2 3 pointers per contest[/QUOTE]

He only played 19 minutes because Detroit was very deep. Garrity could shoot 3s, but would I take that at the expense of defense and rebounding at the power forward position? Absolutely not as evidenced by Orlando's terrible defense and rebounding.

[QUOTE]:oldlol: at all your comments. vaughn was easily better than atkins, who shot the ball more times than he scored points.[/QUOTE]

Atkins had a terrible shooting season, but Vaughn could never shoot anyway. Atkins started quite a bit during his career, including the previous year on a 50 win Piston team. Vaughn was lucky to crack a team's rotation even as a back up.

[QUOTE]in '99 he was 17th, 2 spots higher than he was '07[/QUOTE]

17th is reasonable for '99, but I'll always be laughing at this ridiculous horsesh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]t for '07. The funniest thing is you can't completely hide behind team success without context because you have Wade, Brand and Garnett over Kobe in 2007. Then you have a bunch of other names that are downright comical beginning with Billups,

[QUOTE]he wasn't anywhere near the best player in the league, dwyane wade was clearly in another stratosphere.[/QUOTE]

What a joke. Kobe was in a different stratosphere than Wade if anything. It was obvious to myself and pretty much everyone else including some of Wade's veteran teammates that Kobe was better. He was much more skilled and his game was much more well rounded than Wade. Wade was the better slasher and more relentless going to the basket, but that's about it. Kobe was a much better shooter and much better in the post, and all of this made Kobe a much better scorer. Kobe outscored Wade 35 ppg to 27 ppg, and while Wade held a nice FG% advantage of 49.5% to 45%, Kobe made 2 more threes per game, so Wade's TS% edge was only 58.3% to 55.9%. Plus, Kobe did this without anyone to take pressure off of them, while Wade clearly seemed to benefit from Shaq's presence since he shot 51.7% with him and just 44.7% without him in a significant sample size of 21 games.

[QUOTE]lol the best scorer in the league does not become a "decoy" in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at this trash. Kobe wasn't going to outscore the Suns by himself, both Kobe and Phil knew this. He had averaged 42.5 ppg vs them during the season, but the Lakers had gone 1-3 in those games. Changing Kobe's role and approach made sense and nearly resulted in the upset. He still put up 28/6/5, 50 FG%, but his teammates were playing to their full potential as well.

[QUOTE]bryant was an ok defender, slightly above average, nothing special. he had better defensive seasons.[/QUOTE]

He did have better defensive seasons, but he was still better than almost any star perimeter player.

[QUOTE]i can name 2. dwyane wade, allen iverson.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Based on what? Wade's Heat went just 10-11 when he played and Shaq didn't. And he still had a better cast than Kobe.

All the evidence suggest that '06 Wade couldn't have come close to 45 wins with the '06 Lakers. Probably finishes under .500 and misses the playoffs.

Iverson? :oldlol: His team went 38-44 in the East and missed the playoffs. That's the best case scenario in the West, but probably a bit worse. Kobe did what Iverson did better than he did, which was volume scorer, while being the more efficient, versatile and consistent scorer, and a more well rounded player.

[QUOTE]there is no argument for putting bryant anywhere near the top 10, let alone top 2 in 2007. he had a worse regular season, and an even worse playoff series in which once again, was almost outplayed by lamar odom who stepped up alot more. the lakers had a much higher pace than they did the previous year, and he simply could not capitalize.[/QUOTE]

There is no argument for Kobe being any less than top 2, and he's the correct choice for best player.

[QUOTE]yeh lebron was better in '09, as was kobe. the other better player was dwight howard.[/QUOTE]

Kobe had a legitimate case over Wade in '09, so I can't take issue with you choosing Kobe.

As far as Dwight, he did have a great year, I've pointed out that playoff run in a similar way when some have tried to exclude Dwight from the top 5 players that year. But he was raw offensively, and we saw how he could be contained vs Boston and LA. That held him back from the level of Lebron, Wade and Kobe who were on a different level than everyone else.

[QUOTE]finley was top 23, nash was top 19, and fifth best point guard.[/QUOTE]

I have Finley lower and Nash higher at top 14. Marbury, Francis and Payton are all right behind him, but I don't see any as having a good case since Nash was clearly the best offensive player of the 4, and none were good enough defensively at that point to make up for it.

[QUOTE]what about dirk having a better regular season, and then a better playoff. these facts clearly point out that dirk was the better player.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at this. Do you deny that T-Mac was a better scorer than Dirk and more of an all around player in '03?

[QUOTE]stackhouse contributed much more and won just as many games with less talent the previous season.[/QUOTE]

And lost in the second round. Stackhouse was more skilled and talented overall, but Rip was more efficient, smarter and more of a team player. Stackhouse shot a terrible 32% in the '02 playoffs.

[QUOTE]robinson was no more than a body, and williamson was a big man who could not rebound to save his life, was pathetic without the ball, and a black hole with it.[/QUOTE]

Robinson's ability to shoot 3s as a 6'10" power forward as well as his defense made him valuable. Corliss Williamson wasn't a big man, he was playing small forward and a very nice scorer to have as a complementary player.

[QUOTE]yao played like trash, gooden stepped up huge. no need for stat sheets, go watch the games and you will find these things out.[/QUOTE]

Yao played well, though he struggled with foul trouble. Gooden played well, but still didn't have the impact Yao did. Aside from Yao producing much more offensively, you also had to put a lot more effort into defending him than Gooden, and he was much more of a presence and made a much bigger impact defensively.

[QUOTE]howard wasn't even in the top 5, and nowhere near lebron james.[/QUOTE]

What a joke. Howard made a group of poor defenders a top 3 defensive team, averaged 14 rpg and still put up 23 ppg on 59%. He had no peers defensively, and had developed a very nice skill set and become comfortable with his back to the basket to complement his athleticism.

[QUOTE]who cares if they put up the same stats, its not all about stats, which is why variations occur from year to year.[/QUOTE]

I said nothing about stats. I said PLAY at a comparable level, of course, that means stats to you, but the game is much more than that to me.

[QUOTE]this is just plain filth logic. kobe is 2nd in 2000, this is fact. every year there are different players who step up and play big. see 2002 kobe was better than 2000 kobe, yet he is ranked 3rd because tim duncan stepped up and was better than him, yet in 2000 nobody stepped up to the level that duncan showed in 2002. make sense? 2006 shaq was infact the 16th best player in the league and didn't have anywhere near the impact 2000 kobe had.[/QUOTE]

You're correct that both Duncan and Kobe were better in 2002 than their 2000 selves, but the gap for Kobe was much bigger. Duncan in 2000 was as good as he was in almost any other year. Kobe wasn't even in the same tier as him yet.

As for 2006 Shaq vs 2000 Kobe, your claim that Kobe made a bigger impact is laughable, especially since we conveniently have solid sample sizes that strongly suggest otherwise. The 2000 Lakers went 12-4 without Kobe, and 12-3 when Shaq played in those games. The 2006 Heat went just 10-13 without Shaq, and 10-11 when Wade played in those games.

Not that the backup excuse would make up for such a massive disparity in the first place, but even that helps Shaq's argument. The Heat had that poor record despite having an excellent backup in Alonzo Mourning who was still one of the best defensive players in the game and averaged 12/9 on 58% with 4 bpg as a starter. The Lakers only had Derek Fisher to fill in as a starting guard, and this was before Fisher was even a good shooter. Fisher shot under 35% for the entire 2000 season.

2006 Shaq was a much more savvy and team-oriented player. He was also still probably the biggest mismatch in the game and received far more defensive attention than Kobe. We saw what happened when even a great frontcourt like the Pistons guarded him 1 on 1, he averaged 22/11 with 2.3 bpg on 66%, which may have influenced the Mavs to make him the focus of their defense until game 5. For the season, he still put up 20/9/2/2 on 60% in just 31 mpg.

[QUOTE=jlitt]Right, what im saying is that one 6 foot guard was all that stood between the lakers and the greatest playoff run ever. and no , not a lot of great scorers could win games all by themselves the way ai did that year with the worst supporting cast a finals team has ever seen.[/QUOTE]

Not like Mutombo played any role whatsoever in the Sixers [i]getting[/i] to the Finals, right? Not like he averaged 15.6 rebounds and 6.4 offensive rebounds a game in the ECF when Iverson was shooting 34% or anything. Or that he had performances like 21 points on 6/11 FG, 9/9 FT and 13 rebounds to lead the team to a 1-point win and 3-2 series lead when Iverson shot 5-for-27 or anything. Or that he had 23 points, 19 rebounds and seven blocks in the deciding Game 7 to help get them into the Finals or anything. Or that he was "a monster in all of the series," as Sixers coach Larry Brown said, or that he "took us to another level," as teammate Tyrone Hill said. No, he was just some scrub who Iverson had to carry as he did it all by himself.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Not like Mutombo played any role whatsoever in the Sixers [i]getting[/i] to the Finals, right? Not like he averaged 15.6 rebounds and 6.4 offensive rebounds a game in the ECF when Iverson was shooting 34% or anything. Or that he had performances like 21 points on 6/11 FG, 9/9 FT and 13 rebounds to lead the team to a 1-point win and 3-2 series lead when Iverson shot 5-for-27 or anything. Or that he had 23 points, 19 rebounds and seven blocks in the deciding Game 7 to help get them into the Finals or anything. Or that he was "a monster in all of the series," as Sixers coach Larry Brown said, or that he "took us to another level," as teammate Tyrone Hill said. No, he was just some scrub who Iverson had to carry as he did it all by himself.[/QUOTE]

Post of the day

[QUOTE]His cast was far better than you're giving them credit for. But we don't even need to go over subjective crap about how they look on paper. Just remember that they were a top 2 rebounding team and a top 4 defensive team. Are you going to pretend that doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]
ofcourse that is important. not as important as having a superstar talent level player putting up performances that lebron did that season though.
[QUOTE]He only played 19 minutes because Detroit was very deep. Garrity could shoot 3s, but would I take that at the expense of defense and rebounding at the power forward position? Absolutely not as evidenced by Orlando's terrible defense and rebounding.[/QUOTE]
lol at these excuses why someone didn't play more minutes. give me a non black hole team player who is capable of draining multiple 3s per game anyday.
[QUOTE]Atkins had a terrible shooting season, but Vaughn could never shoot anyway. Atkins started quite a bit during his career, including the previous year on a 50 win Piston team. Vaughn was lucky to crack a team's rotation even as a back up.[/QUOTE]
are we talking about career's here? no, we are talking about the 2003 season, in which atkins was clearly the worse player.
[QUOTE]17th is reasonable for '99, but I'll always be laughing at this ridiculous horseshit for '07. The funniest thing is you can't completely hide behind team success without context because you have Wade, Brand and Garnett over Kobe in 2007. Then you have a bunch of other names that are downright comical beginning with Billups,[/QUOTE]
lol @ horseshit. wade was worlds better in the regular season, making up for his poor showing in the playoffs. bryant was better in the regular season than brand, but his poor showing in the playoffs demoted him behind brand, as was the case for garnett's place over bryant. as for billups? well he was better due to leading the pistons to the best record in the east, and a conference finals appearance.
[QUOTE]What a joke. Kobe was in a different stratosphere than Wade if anything. It was obvious to myself and pretty much everyone else including some of Wade's veteran teammates that Kobe was better. He was much more skilled and his game was much more well rounded than Wade. Wade was the better slasher and more relentless going to the basket, but that's about it. Kobe was a much better shooter and much better in the post, and all of this made Kobe a much better scorer. Kobe outscored Wade 35 ppg to 27 ppg, and while Wade held a nice FG% advantage of 49.5% to 45%, Kobe made 2 more threes per game, so Wade's TS% edge was only 58.3% to 55.9%. Plus, Kobe did this without anyone to take pressure off of them, while Wade clearly seemed to benefit from Shaq's presence since he shot 51.7% with him and just 44.7% without him in a significant sample size of 21 games.[/QUOTE]
the only reason kobe outscored wade 35ppg to 27ppg was the fact that he shot the ball almost 9 more times per game than wade did :hammerhead: .

wade was better in the regular season..and well we know what happened in the playoffs: bryant lost in the first round after going up 3-1, becoming only the 8th team in nba history to lose a series in such a manner. bryant seemed to be in cry baby mode in game 7 of this series, often pouting, showing quitting tendencies, scoring 1 solitary point in the second half.

wade on the other hand had one of the greatest playoff runs in nba history. wade led the bulls past the tough and talented chicago bulls, destroyed the 49 win nets in the second round, past number 1 seed and defending eastern conference champion detroit in the conference finals, and finally defeating the 60 win dallas mavericks in the nba finals.

wade put up 24.7ppg, 4.5rpg, 7.2apg, 2.0spg, and 1.3bpg against chicago, 27.6ppg, 6.0rpg, 6.6apg, 2.4spg, and 0.6bpg against new jersey, 26.7ppg, 5.2rpg, 5.5apg, 1.8spg, 1.5bpg against detroit, and then against the best he played incredible: 34.7ppg, 7.8rpg, 3.8apg, 2.7spg, and 1.0bpg in the finals against dallas, while his second best player was embarrassing himself.
[QUOTE]at this trash. Kobe wasn't going to outscore the Suns by himself, both Kobe and Phil knew this. He had averaged 42.5 ppg vs them during the season, but the Lakers had gone 1-3 in those games. Changing Kobe's role and approach made sense and nearly resulted in the upset. He still put up 28/6/5, 50 FG%, but his teammates were playing to their full potential as well.[/QUOTE]
still put up 7 less points than he did in the regular season in a high pace environment. lamar odom on the other hand played huge and stepped up his game, unlike bryant. odom increased his ppg from 14.8ppg to 19.1ppg, and increased his rpg from 9.2rpg to 11.0rpg.
[QUOTE]Based on what? Wade's Heat went just 10-11 when he played and Shaq didn't. And he still had a better cast than Kobe.

All the evidence suggest that '06 Wade couldn't have come close to 45 wins with the '06 Lakers. Probably finishes under .500 and misses the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
what is this 21 games bullshit? last time i checked an nba season goes for 82 games in length.

it is purely based on the fact that wade was much, much better. i don't play this "probably this would happen if this happened" or "this will happen if a certain player plays somewhere" i deal with facts. sure kobe had a nice regular season, but wade was still better, contributing more to a winning cause. then there were the playoffs, where wade put up a legendary playoff and finals, bryant was busy losing in the first round after being up 3-1, and scoring almost 8 less points than he did in the regular season in more minutes per game, in a higher paced environment.
[QUOTE]Iverson? His team went 38-44 in the East and missed the playoffs. That's the best case scenario in the West, but probably a bit worse. Kobe did what Iverson did better than he did, which was volume scorer, while being the more efficient, versatile and consistent scorer, and a more well rounded player.[/QUOTE]
bryant was better than iverson after the regular season. but because of his disgusting performance, was demoted below iverson as a result. iverson also scored more than bryant per shot attempt, and also managed to average 7.4apg.
[QUOTE]There is no argument for Kobe being any less than top 2, and he's the correct choice for best player.[/QUOTE]
:roll: this is like arguing serge ibaka is the best player in the league of today.
[QUOTE]As far as Dwight, he did have a great year, I've pointed out that playoff run in a similar way when some have tried to exclude Dwight from the top 5 players that year. But he was raw offensively, and we saw how he could be contained vs Boston and LA. That held him back from the level of Lebron, Wade and Kobe who were on a different level than everyone else.[/QUOTE]
dwight was still good enough to lead the orlando magic to the nba finals. we also saw how wade could be contained in the first round losing to the atlanta hawks and not even managing to shoot 44 percent from the field, only managing to break the 50% mark once that series.
[QUOTE]I have Finley lower and Nash higher at top 14. Marbury, Francis and Payton are all right behind him, but I don't see any as having a good case since Nash was clearly the best offensive player of the 4, and none were good enough defensively at that point to make up for it.[QUOTE]
marbury is right behind him. this is the only correct statement of your paragraph. francis, payton, and baron davis are all better than him (along with the obvious jason kidd).
[QUOTE]at this. Do you deny that T-Mac was a better scorer than Dirk and more of an all around player in '03?[/QUOTE]
:lol more statsheet filth. congrats on being able to put up points when your team is constantly going to you on offense. give me dirk's ability to contribute to a winning cause and better point per shot ratio over this .500 ball anyday.
[QUOTE]And lost in the second round. Stackhouse was more skilled and talented overall, but Rip was more efficient, smarter and more of a team player. Stackhouse shot a terrible 32% in the '02 playoffs.[/QUOTE]
stackhouse was disappointing in the playoffs no doubt. however, over 82 games he just provided the pistons with alot more all round firepower.

[QUOTE]Robinson's ability to shoot 3s as a 6'10" power forward as well as his defense made him valuable. Corliss Williamson wasn't a big man, he was playing small forward and a very nice scorer to have as a complementary player.[/QUOTE]
robinson was trash, he had no ability to shoot 3s as was obvious by his three point percent under league average. he was much more closer to average the previous year, but in '03 he dropped off in almost every facet of the game. williamson was much closer to a big man than a small man, played in the post, and defended big guys. all he could manage was just over 4 rebounds per game and shot a paultry 45% from the field.
[QUOTE]Yao played well, though he struggled with foul trouble. Gooden played well, but still didn't have the impact Yao did. Aside from Yao producing much more offensively, you also had to put a lot more effort into defending him than Gooden, and he was much more of a presence and made a much bigger impact defensively.[/QUOTE]
yao was trash. yao was the reason the rockets lost in the first round. mcgrady stepped up, yao did not. he could only manage to put up 12 shots per game, averaged under 8 rebounds, and turned the ball over as many times as he blocked shots, and ofcourse there was the foul trouble as you have mentioned. houston was just as effective with mutombo on the court than they were with yao. gooden on the other hand was a pleasant surprise. he improved in every facet of the game. put up 14 points, 12.7 rebounds, and only put up only 1.7 turnovers per contest as a rookie. including coming up huge in the elimination game 7 with 20 points and 17 rebounds.
[QUOTE]What a joke. Howard made a group of poor defenders a top 3 defensive team, averaged 14 rpg and still put up 23 ppg on 59%. He had no peers defensively, and had developed a very nice skill set and become comfortable with his back to the basket to complement his athleticism.[/QUOTE]
how far did all these meaningless stats get his orlando magic? how did he perform in the playoffs?
[QUOTE]I said nothing about stats. I said PLAY at a comparable level, of course, that means stats to you, but the game is much more than that to me.[/QUOTE]
ahh ofcourse it does, yet all you mention is numbers when comparing players
[QUOTE]You're correct that both Duncan and Kobe were better in 2002 than their 2000 selves, but the gap for Kobe was much bigger. Duncan in 2000 was as good as he was in almost any other year. Kobe wasn't even in the same tier as him yet.[/QUOTE]
actually the difference between kobe is very minimal, however the difference in duncan was huge. duncan in '00 was worse than he was in any year of his prime.
[QUOTE]As for 2006 Shaq vs 2000 Kobe, your claim that Kobe made a bigger impact is laughable, especially since we conveniently have solid sample sizes that strongly suggest otherwise. The 2000 Lakers went 12-4 without Kobe, and 12-3 when Shaq played in those games. The 2006 Heat went just 10-13 without Shaq, and 10-11 when Wade played in those games. [/QUOTE]
this filth again :roll: too many factors can come into play when dealing with "sample sizes" of an 82 game regular season.
[QUOTE]Not that the backup excuse would make up for such a massive disparity in the first place, but even that helps Shaq's argument. The Heat had that poor record despite having an excellent backup in Alonzo Mourning who was still one of the best defensive players in the game and averaged 12/9 on 58% with 4 bpg as a starter. The Lakers only had Derek Fisher to fill in as a starting guard, and this was before Fisher was even a good shooter. Fisher shot under 35% for the entire 2000 season.[/QUOTE]
again, too many factors. the '00 lakers had peak shaq, a much better option to fall back on than '06 dwyane wade.
[QUOTE]2006 Shaq was a much more savvy and team-oriented player. He was also still probably the biggest mismatch in the game and received far more defensive attention than Kobe. We saw what happened when even a great frontcourt like the Pistons guarded him 1 on 1, he averaged 22/11 with 2.3 bpg on 66%, which may have influenced the Mavs to make him the focus of their defense until game 5. For the season, he still put up 20/9/2/2 on 60% in just 31 mpg.[/QUOTE]
he looked like he was making up the numbers in the finals, i felt embarassed for him watching the trash he put up in that series, it was cringe-worthy. bryant on the other hand came up huge when it mattered most. in a tough 3-2 series victory over the kings he put up 28/4/4/1/1 including outscoring peak o'neal in 3 out of the 5 games in the first round. putting up 20/5/6/2/2 against the trail blazers in the conference finals including a game 7 in which he was the best player. and against the pacers in the finals, well we all know how that series went if not i recommend you watching pivitol game 4 in indianapolis.

[QUOTE=Shep]ofcourse that is important. not as important as having a superstar talent level player putting up performances that lebron did that season though.[/QUOTE]

You're probably right about that, I'm just saying that most teams would love to be elite defensive teams and rebounding teams.

[QUOTE]lol at these excuses why someone didn't play more minutes. give me a non black hole team player who is capable of draining multiple 3s per game anyday.[/QUOTE]

I'll take the guy who can also shoot, and do other things, most importantly, the things you expect from a big man, unlike the one-dimensional Pat Garrity.

[QUOTE]are we talking about career's here? no, we are talking about the 2003 season, in which atkins was clearly the worse player.[/QUOTE]

Atkins had a poor year, but teams still respected his ability to shoot a lot more than Vaughn.

[QUOTE]lol @ horseshit. wade was worlds better in the regular season, making up for his poor showing in the playoffs. bryant was better in the regular season than brand, but his poor showing in the playoffs demoted him behind brand, as was the case for garnett's place over bryant. as for billups? well he was better due to leading the pistons to the best record in the east, and a conference finals appearance.[/QUOTE]

Wade was close to Kobe before his injuries, but after the injuries, and as a result, his terrible playoff series, Kobe is the obvious choice. Brand and Garnett weren't even in the playoffs so those are ridiculous points. Garnett's Wolves finished 10 wins behind Kobe's Lakers, and Garnett had his worst season from '00-'08. Regarding Billups, it was common knowledge how much Detroit relied on their big 4. Billups was a nice, second-tier all-star PG, but it's ridiculous to compare his situation to the superstars mentioned. His play simply doesn't warrant it.

[QUOTE]the only reason kobe outscored wade 35ppg to 27ppg was the fact that he shot the ball almost 9 more times per game than wade did :hammerhead: .[/QUOTE]

Wade didn't have nearly as diverse of a skill set as Kobe, so it's foolish to suggest he could have gotten the same shot attempts, much less with nobody to take pressure off him. In fact, in 21 games without Shaq, Wade's FG% plummeted to under 45%.

[QUOTE]wade was better in the regular season..and well we know what happened in the playoffs: bryant lost in the first round after going up 3-1, becoming only the 8th team in nba history to lose a series in such a manner. bryant seemed to be in cry baby mode in game 7 of this series, often pouting, showing quitting tendencies, scoring 1 solitary point in the second half.[/QUOTE]

Wade was better in the playoffs, but he wasn't even close in the regular season. Despite a much better team, he only won 7 more games in a weaker conference. Wade's cast even with Shaq out was still probably better than Kobe's Lakers, yet he couldn't even play .500 ball in a stretch that was 1/4 of the season. Meanwhile, Kobe not only was better and played better, but was far more impressive carrying his team during the regular season.

[QUOTE]still put up 7 less points than he did in the regular season in a high pace environment. lamar odom on the other hand played huge and stepped up his game, unlike bryant. odom increased his ppg from 14.8ppg to 19.1ppg, and increased his rpg from 9.2rpg to 11.0rpg.[/QUOTE]

Odom did step up, but I just explained Kobe's drop in scoring. His rebounds and assists were both up, though and his FG% rose from 45% to almost 50%.

[QUOTE]what is this 21 games bullshit? last time i checked an nba season goes for 82 games in length.[/QUOTE]

It's over a 1/4 of the season, and gives us a good idea of how Wade would have fared with a team like Kobe's team. You claimed he could have matched Kobe's success with that Laker team, but the evidence contradicts your statement.

[QUOTE]it is purely based on the fact that wade was much, much better. i don't play this "probably this would happen if this happened" or "this will happen if a certain player plays somewhere" i deal with facts. sure kobe had a nice regular season, but wade was still better, contributing more to a winning cause. then there were the playoffs, where wade put up a legendary playoff and finals, bryant was busy losing in the first round after being up 3-1, and scoring almost 8 less points than he did in the regular season in more minutes per game, in a higher paced environment.[/QUOTE]

It's based on nothing. If you want to make an argument for Wade being better, you better stick to those playoffs and nothing else. But the idea that Wade would have led those Lakers to a record above .500, much less 45 wins, is laughable.

[QUOTE]bryant was better than iverson after the regular season. but because of his disgusting performance, was demoted below iverson as a result. iverson also scored more than bryant per shot attempt, and also managed to average 7.4apg.[/QUOTE]

Iverson didn't even play in the playoffs after a 38-44 season in the East. Kobe's FG% and TS% were both better than Iverson while outscoring him by 2+ ppg, and playing better defense. The gap in assists is made bigger by Iverson's excessive ball-dominance.

[QUOTE]dwight was still good enough to lead the orlando magic to the nba finals. we also saw how wade could be contained in the first round losing to the atlanta hawks and not even managing to shoot 44 percent from the field, only managing to break the 50% mark once that series.[/QUOTE]

Dwight's impact was enormous, and Wade's series vs Atlanta was disappointing, even with the nagging injuries. But Wade's all around play, and individual dominance were too much. Only Lebron could compare to that type of all around play and individual dominance.

[QUOTE]marbury is right behind him. this is the only correct statement of your paragraph. francis, payton, and baron davis are all better than him (along with the obvious jason kidd).[/QUOTE]

Kidd goes without saying, but Baron isn't even in the discussion. Payton and Francis are pretty close to Nash, but since none of the 3 brought much defensively at that point, and Nash isn't far behind as a scorer, while being easily the best passer and shooter, it's a clear choice. Especially since Nash was an all-star on a 60 win conference finals team, while I have a much tougher time seeing Francis or Payton accomplishing that in 2003.

[QUOTE]stackhouse was disappointing in the playoffs no doubt. however, over 82 games he just provided the pistons with alot more all round firepower.[/QUOTE]

Debatable. Stackhouse was more talented, but you can make a case for Rip because he's arguably a better fit alongside talent.

[QUOTE]robinson was trash, he had no ability to shoot 3s as was obvious by his three point percent under league average. he was much more closer to average the previous year, but in '03 he dropped off in almost every facet of the game. williamson was much closer to a big man than a small man, played in the post, and defended big guys. all he could manage was just over 4 rebounds per game and shot a paultry 45% from the field.[/QUOTE]

1.1 3s at 34% is solid for a big man, and Robinson was also a fine defender. Williamson could flat out score. Neither were stars, but not bad at all for your 4th and 5th best players.

[QUOTE]yao was trash. yao was the reason the rockets lost in the first round. mcgrady stepped up, yao did not. he could only manage to put up 12 shots per game, averaged under 8 rebounds, and turned the ball over as many times as he blocked shots, and ofcourse there was the foul trouble as you have mentioned. houston was just as effective with mutombo on the court than they were with yao. gooden on the other hand was a pleasant surprise. he improved in every facet of the game. put up 14 points, 12.7 rebounds, and only put up only 1.7 turnovers per contest as a rookie. including coming up huge in the elimination game 7 with 20 points and 17 rebounds.[/QUOTE]

Yao struggled with foul trouble, but he was still very good offensively, and a major presence. There's no way I'd rather have Gooden.

[QUOTE]how far did all these meaningless stats get his orlando magic? how did he perform in the playoffs?[/QUOTE]

An impressive 52 wins and as far as you could expect with his teammates playing like a D-League team vs Atlanta.

[QUOTE]ahh ofcourse it does, yet all you mention is numbers when comparing players[/QUOTE]

You're not fooling anyone with blatant lies.

[QUOTE]again, too many factors. the '00 lakers had peak shaq, a much better option to fall back on than '06 dwyane wade.[/QUOTE]

You can look at the difference in winning % when '06 Shaq played with Wade vs without and '00 Kobe with and without Shaq. You'll see the team's winning % pretty consistent with and without kobe in '00, but an enormous difference with and without Shaq in '06.

[QUOTE]he looked like he was making up the numbers in the finals, i felt embarassed for him watching the trash he put up in that series, it was cringe-worthy. bryant on the other hand came up huge when it mattered most. in a tough 3-2 series victory over the kings he put up 28/4/4/1/1 including outscoring peak o'neal in 3 out of the 5 games in the first round. putting up 20/5/6/2/2 against the trail blazers in the conference finals including a game 7 in which he was the best player. and against the pacers in the finals, well we all know how that series went if not i recommend you watching pivitol game 4 in indianapolis.[/QUOTE]

If we're looking at entire playoff runs, then look at Shaq's first round vs Chicago when Wade had a subpar series by his standard and Shaq closed out Chicago with a 30/20 game, or Shaq's monstrous ECF as I mentioned. Kobe's game 4 vs Indiana was a classic, but other than that, he had a very poor series.

[B]Prime Barkley > Any Stockton-To-Malone[/B]

No , he wasn't better defender than Mailman . But i think , he's better scorer . Most of Mailman's points were assisted rather than Barkley .

[QUOTE=feyki]No , he wasn't better defender than Mailman . But i think , he's better scorer . Most of Mailman's points were assisted rather than Barkley .[/QUOTE]

Barkley's court vision and passing, particularly out of the post was better than Malone's.

malone was boring