View Single Post
Old 11-13-2012, 09:39 PM   #316
7-time NBA All-Star
ShaqAttack3234's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,753
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Originally Posted by Shep
ofcourse that is important. not as important as having a superstar talent level player putting up performances that lebron did that season though.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 .

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%.

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 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.

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.

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%.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

ahh ofcourse it does, yet all you mention is numbers when comparing players

You're not fooling anyone with blatant lies.

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

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.

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.

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.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote