are the people who voted shaq the 7th best player ever hypocrites?

[alleykat]

kobe can be in the top 10 if u want, that's your prerogative. you can put him as your top 1, matter of fact you can go further and put him in negative numbers if you want.

you guys understand that the top 10 is subjective right? You don't have to be angry about people not listing kobe in their top 10, it just shows that you can't be unbias like the next guy.

[kennethgriffin]

OP is the maddest poster on ISH.

>Comes up with endless threads whining about Kobe not getting respect.
>Only ever disrespects other players ranked ahead of Kobe.

Yeah, way to go.

i praise a ton of great players... i've been boasting this laker team can contend even without kobe. ive said bynum will go on to legendary status in philly. i said jordan is the GOAT many times

youd be surprised how much i praise others. people only see what they wanna see

[kennethgriffin]

kobe can be in the top 10 if u want, that's your prerogative. you can put him as your top 1, matter of fact you can go further and put him in negative numbers if you want or use ∞ to distinguish him....

you guys understand that the top 10 is subjective right? for me Kobe can be number 7, it's just shaq will be higher......

yea... thats what i said. its a fan poll

its become "post your favorite players from order of #1-#10

"we'l call it the top 10 players of all time"

you can just change the reasoning for which you rank players after each player is voted upon



sorry... this is trolling and agenda driven garbage. and thread titles should be changed by mods based on what is really being talked about because its misleading

[Yung D-Will]

You really felt the need to make a separate thread about this?

Simply put, I don't vote for any player based on just "peak play" or "career", or anything like that. It's more of a sum total rather than one specific aspect. For instance peak play is one of the most important factors for me, but I don't even allow you to be considered a candidate for top 10 without at least two championships. It's not one set criteria that causes me to pick one player over the other; It's the sum of a lot of different factors, including Peak play, prime, longevity, consistency, efficiency, championships, level of competition, supporting cast, coaching, and of course none of this can stand on it's own without context.

So no, I simply didn't pick Shaq over Kobe, soley based on peak play. Rather than that, I realized that the one additional championship when put into the context of him being the best player for only two of them, along with the longevity, didn't merit him being put over a player with a far superior peak, who was the best player on three out of the 4 championships he won, with extremely dominant finals performances . Even in terms of longevity, Shaq's not Larry Bird, from the moment he stepped on to the nba court in his rookie season, he achieved a whopping 13 straight seasons averaging at least 21/10 on at least 55% shooting (1992-2005).

[Sarcastic]

And why is that? Do people realize Shaq has 3 Finals MVP's?!

Wilt would have 2 of them, if the award existed in 1967.

[jstern]

These fake Laker fans hate so badly a guy who dominated and gave the Lakers 3 championships.

[kennethgriffin]

You really felt the need to make a separate thread about this?

Simply put, I don't vote for any player based on just "peak play" or "career", or anything like that. It's more of a sum total rather than one specific aspect. For instance peak play is one of the most important factors for me, but I don't even allow you to be considered a candidate for top 10 without at least two championships. It's not one set criteria that causes me to pick one player over the other; It's the sum of a lot of different factors, including Peak play, prime, longevity, consistency, efficiency, championships, level of competition, supporting cast, coaching, and of course none of this can stand on it's own without context.

So no, I simply didn't pick Shaq over Kobe, soley based on peak play. Rather than that, I realized that the one additional championship when put into the context of him being the best player for only two of them, along with the longevity, didn't merit him being put over a player with a far superior peak, who was the best player on three out of the 4 championships he won, with extremely dominant finals performances . Even in terms of longevity, Shaq's not Larry Bird, from the moment he stepped on to the nba court in his rookie season, he achieved a whopping 13 straight seasons averaging at least 21/10 on at least 55% shooting (1992-2005).

if the "sum total" of wilt and shaq are above kobe... then the sum total of shaq and wilt would be above bird

but bird is more popular that shaq and wilt here

and shaq/wilt are more popular than kobe here

see the trend?




and btw... kobe has a prime that is somewhat less than shaqs... sure

but his career is leaps and bounds ahead of shaqs. i listed 50 major things kobe had over shaq in the main thread for voting #7

so if its the sum total kobes ahead of shaq too.

if kobe has 50 things over shaq for careers. and shaq only has 1-2 things over kobe in peak play...

then guess what

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Wilt would have 2 of them, if the award existed in 1967.

Right, but where's the hypocrisy in rating Shaq over Kobe? Shaq was also a much better playoff and Finals performer than Wilt. Educate yourselves.

[kennethgriffin]

These fake Laker fans hate so badly a guy who dominated and gave the Lakers 3 championships.

who said i hate shaq

if they made a thead asking who had the most impact in their absolute prime for 1-2 years

i'd be mad at people for not picking wilt and shaq ahead of bird, magic, russell, kareem and jordan


shaqs one of the best ever. hes a legend. i would make just as big a deal if hakeem was voted over kobe for this "peak" agenda when he would be voted over bird/magic aswell for that same reasoning... BUT ISNT

[CasterL]

Seek help. Tragic meltdown.

[Yung D-Will]

if the "sum total" of wilt and shaq are above kobe... then the sum total of shaq and wilt would be above bird

but bird is more popular that shaq and wilt here

and shaq/wilt are more popular than kobe here

see the trend?




and btw... kobe has a prime that is somewhat less than shaqs... sure

but his career is leaps and bounds ahead of shaqs. i listed 50 major things kobe had over shaq in the main thread for voting #7

so if its the sum total kobes ahead of shaq too.

if kobe has 50 things over shaq for careers. and shaq only has 1-2 things over kobe in peak play...

then guess what

Popularity? What exactly are you talking about? Kobe's probally been the most popular player of the past decade.

Bird's Peak was one of the few peaks on the same level of Shaq IMO. Bird's MVP's, along with the fact that he's the only player besides Steve Nash, to record multiple 50/40/90 seasons, gives him a slight edge over Shaq. However it could go either way.

I wouldn't sit here complaning about someone putting Shaq over Bird, because the gap isn't that big, so I'm not understanding why you're complaning about someone putting Shaq over Kobe.

[fpliii]

if the "sum total" of wilt and shaq are above kobe... then the sum total of shaq and wilt would be above bird

but bird is more popular that shaq and wilt here

and shaq/wilt are more popular than kobe here

see the trend?




and btw... kobe has a prime that is somewhat less than shaqs... sure

but his career is leaps and bounds ahead of shaqs. i listed 50 major things kobe had over shaq in the main thread for voting #7

so if its the sum total kobes ahead of shaq too.

if kobe has 50 things over shaq for careers. and shaq only has 1-2 things over kobe in peak play...

then guess what

griff - in your opinion, are all 50 of those things of equal importance?

[Freedom Kid7]

[BrickingStar]

Popularity? What exactly are you talking about? Kobe's probally been the most popular player of the past decade.

Bird's Peak was one of the few peaks on the same level of Shaq IMO. Bird's MVP's, along with the fact that he's the only player besides Steve Nash, to record multiple 50/40/90 seasons, gives him a slight edge over Shaq. However it could go either way.

I wouldn't sit here complaning about someone putting Shaq over Bird, because the gap isn't that big, so I'm not understanding why you're complaning about someone putting Shaq over Kobe.

He's from canada who's a ****ing retard and loves kobe not the lakers and can't realize that the top 10 is subjective leave this bitch and his asylum alone

[Sarcastic]

Right, but where's the hypocrisy in rating Shaq over Kobe? Shaq was also a much better playoff and Finals performer than Wilt. Educate yourselves.

So the top 10 should really be called "10 best playoff performers of all time" since that's all most people are considering.


Wilt was an exceptional playoff performer btw. He averaged 25 rebounds per game for his career in the playoffs.