Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[Shep]

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.

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

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

..and they won just as many games as they did with chucky atkins running the point the year earlier.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

where have you proven this? it must have been in another thread somewhere because in this one all of your arguments have been destroyed.

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.

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.

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

not sure why you are mentioning this considering he played easily better.

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.

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

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?

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.

[L.A. Jazz]

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.

[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.

[L.A. Jazz]

...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...

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.

[jlitt]

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.

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.

[Round Mound]

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.

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.

[Sarcastic]

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.

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

[Round Mound]

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

Which he Was

But he Was 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.

[D.J.]

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

[Round Mound]

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

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.

[ShaqAttack3234]

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.

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?

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

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.

at all your comments. vaughn was easily better than atkins, who shot the ball more times than he scored points.

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.

in '99 he was 17th, 2 spots higher than he was '07

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,

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

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.

lol the best scorer in the league does not become a "decoy" in the playoffs.

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.

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

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

i can name 2. dwyane wade, allen iverson.

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? 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.

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.

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

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

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.

finley was top 23, nash was top 19, and fifth best point guard.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[ThaRegul8r]

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.

Not like Mutombo played any role whatsoever in the Sixers getting 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.

[DatAsh]

Not like Mutombo played any role whatsoever in the Sixers getting 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.

Post of the day

[Shep]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

this is like arguing serge ibaka is the best player in the league of today.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

[Shep]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

this filth again too many factors can come into play when dealing with "sample sizes" of an 82 game regular season.

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.

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

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.

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.